|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 14:29:37 GMT -5
At least 1 86 overall player for a 91. Okay, I'm gonna explain the laws of diminishing returns. Gio at age 27 irl would be at his technical highest point of value. After that, his value slowly diminishes, as does the return for him. At age 36, his value is nowhere close to what it was when he was 27, it has depreciated every year since then. At age 37, his value will be lower than it was at 36, even if he is still a 91 (which is not possible with how downgrades work). At age 38 his value will be lower than it was at 37, etc etc until he retires and his value has now depreciated to 0. Meanwhile, the value of Mete and Puljujarvi most likely have appreciated over those years and are still appreciating or at least being stagnant while Gio's value is at that point, 0. Yes, but overalls mean something too there, Joubie... He only gets a -1 at the end of this season, unless he shits the bed and performs poorly, putting him at a 90 to finish out this contract, not 88. Pool Party & Mete won't even touch that unless a miracle happens and one of them becomes a league leader in something or you MPU the shit out of them. That's it. Therefore, in this particular instance, you can take your "diminishing returns" and cram them up your ass, cuz Gio will likely only be down to an 88 when he goes into FA at age 38, if he doesn't retire. So, as far as I'm concerned, he's a 90 overall player... Period. Cuz at this stage & situation with Gio's contract, this is literally no different than the CGY-NJD deal really, and we're rejecting that.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 15:07:30 GMT -5
Okay, I'm gonna explain the laws of diminishing returns. Gio at age 27 irl would be at his technical highest point of value. After that, his value slowly diminishes, as does the return for him. At age 36, his value is nowhere close to what it was when he was 27, it has depreciated every year since then. At age 37, his value will be lower than it was at 36, even if he is still a 91 (which is not possible with how downgrades work). At age 38 his value will be lower than it was at 37, etc etc until he retires and his value has now depreciated to 0. Meanwhile, the value of Mete and Puljujarvi most likely have appreciated over those years and are still appreciating or at least being stagnant while Gio's value is at that point, 0. Yes, but overalls mean something too there, Joubie... He only gets a -1 at the end of this season, unless he shits the bed and performs poorly, putting him at a 90 to finish out this contract, not 88. Pool Party & Mete won't even touch that unless a miracle happens and one of them becomes a league leader in something or you MPU the shit out of them. That's it. Therefore, in this particular instance, you can take your "diminishing returns" and cram them up your ass, cuz Gio will likely only be down to an 88 when he goes into FA at age 38, if he doesn't retire. So, as far as I'm concerned, he's a 90 overall player... Period. Cuz at this stage & situation with Gio's contract, this is literally no different than the CGY-NJD deal really, and we're rejecting that. Okay, let's put it this way... 91 - 36 years old 90 (could be even less but say he performs amazing and doesn't get performance downgrades) - 37 years old 88 - 38 years old 86 - 39 years old (or he could retire and be 0 - 39 years old) 84 - 40 years old or 0 - 40 years old 82 - 41 years old or 0 - 41 years old etc etc Now let's say Mete and Puljujarvi only grow to 85 (I think Puljujarvi will grow to probably around an 87 but let's be modest). In 3 seasons, Gio will be an 86 or retired. Would you move two 85 overall, 25 year olds for him? I don't think so. Gio's value can not be looked at on the same level as other 91s because his age dictates that 3 seasons from now he will be an 86 (again, at the least, if he performs poorly he could be closer to an 80). In return, Calgary gets two young players that have an appreciating value that would not equal a prime Gio but should equate to a Gio that has a fast diminishing value. I understand where you're trying to come from but this is basic economics at this point. I can even do this with cars. Would you rather a Mercedes that is valued at $35,000 but only lasts for two more years and then it's value drops to 0? And over those two years, it's price is dropping by $1,458.33 every month or would you rather two Hyundais that are $14,000 each ($28,000 in total) and then it's value drops to 0 in 15 years, it's price dropping by $155.56 every month? You see initially the Mercedes is valued more. 35,000 to 28,000, seems like a no brainer. But every month those values are changing and the Hyundai is becoming more valuable than the Mercedes and the longevity of it makes it more valuable. 01. 35000.00 > 28000.00 02. 33541.67 > 27844.44 03. 32083.34 > 27688.88 04. 30625.01 > 27533.32 05. 29166.68 > 27377.76 06. 27708.35 > 27222.20 07. 26250.02 < 27066.64 Notice how in the 7th month, how now the Mercedes' value is worth less than both of the Hyundai's? By month 24 when the Mercedes is now worth 0, the Hyundais are worth 24,266.56. Which would you prefer now? Now, cars are different because their value starts to depreciate the moment you drive it but the math more or less works the same. In fact, right now Calgary is getting two appreciating players for his quickly depreciating player. Sure the value doesn't seem there right now but 3 seasons from now Calgary will have two 85s while Montreal will have at best an 86, could be an 80, could be retired.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 15:32:14 GMT -5
Tampa Bay Lightning GM I'm not quoting all that nonsense cuz none of that means shit when the player in question is still likely going to be a 90 overall for the duration of the current contract.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 15:38:30 GMT -5
None of that means shit when the player in question is still going to be a 90 overall for the duration of the contract. I'll take that as a no to you understanding the basic world of economics.
|
|
|
Post by Old Greg on Jul 31, 2020 15:39:50 GMT -5
Seattle Kraken GM nothing you can do now anyway itβs been approved pending pr so whether Gio waives to Montreal is up to him
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 15:48:48 GMT -5
None of that means shit when the player in question is still going to be a 90 overall for the duration of the contract. I'll take that as a no to you understanding the basic world of economics. Obviously neither do you... π Cuz you still think you're some bastion of knowledge when it comes to this shit when the reality is that you're not. If Gio had a 3-5 year contract, then you might have a point based on the overall he's at, but not on a 2 year contract when the only thing you can guarantee is MTL will get him as a 90 for those 2 seasons, then likely have to pay him the same or more on an extension, if he doesn't retire. So no, your argument doesn't hold water in this particular case cuz Gio's value doesn't depreciate hardly at all til after this contract is expired.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 15:59:42 GMT -5
Seattle Kraken GM nothing you can do now anyway itβs been approved pending pr so whether Gio waives to Montreal is up to him It's always going to be a topic though, and I'm sick of the double standards on this when it comes to age, especially on elite players and that this is virtually the exact same thing as the NJD deal, yet the same folks approving this crap rejected that one outright. Gio should hold the exact same value as Gaudreau based on the fact it's not likely Gio will drop below 90 before his contract expires in 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 16:00:42 GMT -5
I'll take that as a no to you understanding the basic world of economics. Obviously neither do you... π Cuz you still think you're some bastion of knowledge when it comes to this shit when the reality is that you're not. If Gio had a 3-5 year contract, then you might have a point based on the overall he's at, but not on a 2 year contract when the only thing you can guarantee is MTL will get him as a 90 for those 2 seasons, then likely have to pay him the same or more on an extension, if he doesn't retire. So no, your argument doesn't hold water in this particular case cuz Gio's value doesn't depreciate hardly at all til after this contract is expired. Dude, Gio's value 100% depreciates during his contract and will continue after it. The point of the matter is that Montreal gets two years of a 90 Gio and then either doesn't have him anymore or has a player who's value has significantly dropped for two players that have an appreciating value. It's not this hard to understand. I'm seriously not trying to be a dick, believe me I'm not but like it's scary that you don't have an understanding of basic economics. I legit would be willing to sit down with you on Skype or something for like 10 mins to explain it. You're 40, you should have an understanding of how economics work.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Kraken GM on Jul 31, 2020 16:11:20 GMT -5
Obviously neither do you... π Cuz you still think you're some bastion of knowledge when it comes to this shit when the reality is that you're not. If Gio had a 3-5 year contract, then you might have a point based on the overall he's at, but not on a 2 year contract when the only thing you can guarantee is MTL will get him as a 90 for those 2 seasons, then likely have to pay him the same or more on an extension, if he doesn't retire. So no, your argument doesn't hold water in this particular case cuz Gio's value doesn't depreciate hardly at all til after this contract is expired. Dude, Gio's value 100% depreciates during his contract and will continue after it. The point of the matter is that Montreal gets two years of a 90 Gio and then either doesn't have him anymore or has a player who's value has significantly dropped for two players that have an appreciating value. It's not this hard to understand. I'm seriously not trying to be a dick, believe me I'm not but like it's scary that you don't have an understanding of basic economics. I legit would be willing to sit down with you on Skype or something for like 10 mins to explain it. You're 40, you should have an understanding of how economics work. It's literally scary that you think you do... πππ Based on his current contract duration, and only being guaranteed to lose 1 overall through that span, which isn't much of a depreciation, makes. You still should be paying for a 90 player, none of these bullshit excuses of that "he's 36" and he'll -1... He'll still be a 90 overall at that point. You're also trading for that contract, and, if by the end of said contract he is only a -1, how much diminishment value can there really be? Virtually zip... π€· Maybe you should hit the books again there pal, cuz from where I'm sitting, you're missing quite a few key elements in this case to warrant your "diminishing value" argument.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning GM on Jul 31, 2020 16:35:15 GMT -5
Dude, Gio's value 100% depreciates during his contract and will continue after it. The point of the matter is that Montreal gets two years of a 90 Gio and then either doesn't have him anymore or has a player who's value has significantly dropped for two players that have an appreciating value. It's not this hard to understand. I'm seriously not trying to be a dick, believe me I'm not but like it's scary that you don't have an understanding of basic economics. I legit would be willing to sit down with you on Skype or something for like 10 mins to explain it. You're 40, you should have an understanding of how economics work. It's literally scary that you think you do... πππ Based on his current contract duration, and only being guaranteed to lose 1 overall through that span, which isn't much of a depreciation, makes. You still should be paying for a 90 player, none of these bullshit excuses of that "he's 36" and he'll -1... He'll still be a 90 overall at that point. You're also trading for that contract, and, if by the end of said contract he is only a -1, how much diminishment value can there really be? Virtually zip... π€· Maybe you should hit the books again there pal, cuz from where I'm sitting, you're missing quite a few key elements in this case to warrant your "diminishing value" argument. Explain why he should be treated the same as Marner, Rantanen, Gaudreau, etc. Why should the return be similar for players that will be more than likely improving or stagnant for the next 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by Ottawa Senators GM on Jul 31, 2020 16:39:31 GMT -5
This is final pending Player Rep . I'm locking it in the mean time, because this is not worth a 4+ page conversation where nobody changes anybody else's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Player Rep on Jul 31, 2020 17:05:09 GMT -5
CGY has 27pts/25GP sitting 3rd in the Pacific & MTL has 19pts/22GP sitting 7th in the Atlantic
At this moment - Giordano does NOT waive for MTL
REJECT/FINAL
|
|