Buy Low/Sell High Candidates

[Instant Karma]

I'm not sure how Oshie's 3 points in 14 games cannot be considered a buy low.

Regardless of who he's playing with, Oshie is better than an 18 point full season player.

Then again, according to this thread, nobody is going to be naive enough to trade Oshie now anyway. So don't bother trying to acquire him cheaply. No point.
lol :-)

Yeah, he probably is a buy-low. I expect that his owners are eyeing Tank, Lehtera, and Schwartz with hate right now.

[LakeSoup]

I'm not sure how Oshie's 3 points in 14 games cannot be considered a buy low.

Regardless of who he's playing with, Oshie is better than an 18 point full season player.

Then again, according to this thread, nobody is going to be naive enough to trade Oshie now anyway. So don't bother trying to acquire him cheaply. No point.
lol :-)

I agree that Oshie will not continue at an 18 game pace but his name and past historical point totals demand that I give up a player that could outpoint him by the end of the season. As an Oshie owner, who is a player that you would actually trade him for? Not many.

[sharpp87]

As a Oshie Owner I receive offers for Parenteau !! said no for sure.

I just sended an offer an hour ago to get Ryan O'reilly for my Oshie

There both Struggling and O'Reilly is younger so I might have to Add Baerstchi or a pick but I dont care ! I dont need Baertschi or the pick that much... we'll see out it goes tonight after hiw work !

[larrylintz]

Can't believe Ryan Johansen hasn't been mentioned. He and Voracek are the two most screaming sell highs in the league. Tarasenko not too far behind.

RJ an emerging superstar, sell high at your peril

[larrylintz]

Well, Eye, that just isn't a justification to describe a player as "sell high." You assume all owners are idiots who automatically pull out their calculators and multiply every player's ppg x 82. If that were the case you could offer Foligno for Patrick kane and not instantly have your credibility obliterated in your league forever. Plus you are implicitly suggesting you could trade Johansen for a proven 90-plus player right now who has had a bit of a slow start, and I highly doubt that this is in the cards. And frankly Johansen is certainly a candidate to score in the 80-90 range, perhaps as early as this year. Why not? Some players do it, and i can state as a fact that it's not always players who have proven they have done it in the past.
In fact, I'll go on the record now and say that in a couple of years we will almost certainly see an exchange stating: "It's outrageous to suggest this unproven kid (say, McDavid in 2nd year) is in the same class as these elite, established 90-point plus scorers (say, Johansen/Tarasenko/McKinnon)." I've been around so long I remember when guys like PETER Forsberg and Kariya were viewed unfavourably, because they were unproven kids, vs established guys who are now utterly forgettable like Vince Damphouse. (In fact i think i won a league once trading the latter for Forsberg in October of PF's rookie year). Yes, sometimes it takes time to develop, but you will never catch lightning in a bottle if you constantly wait for someone to prove without a doubt they are studs. You gotta speculate to accumulate as my father-in-law used to say when making an aggressive bridge bid.

[LakeSoup]

Some of the arguments in this thread are incredibly bizarre.

Think outside of your own perspective.

If every GM thought exactly the same about every player... trades would rarely happen!

I am thinking outside my own perspective. I'm simply trying to fit these buy-low, sell-highs in a reasonable context. Again, I'm rephrasing that this is not a thread where we are appraising how players are currently performing and whether or not they will continue at this pace toward the end of the season. This is not a thread where we are building arguments to deduct a player's point totals by the end of the season. This is a thread where posters provide their opinions on whether a certain transaction is fair and viable - in being able to provide a player that we think is over-performing in exchange for a player who is under-performing.

This involves 3 steps:
1) Identifying whether a player is under-performing
2) Matching this player with a player we identify is overperforming
3) Judge whether a transaction would be likely depending on a variety of things:
a) the rival manager's needs
b) whether or not current performance under a very small sample size is indicative of future performance
c) historical and current trends of these players
d) the name equity involved

So under some of the criteria I mentioned, I will use Oshie as my example. Yes, he's under-performing. Okay.
From the perspective of an owner, I can either hold OR trade him for a player who I think will outperform him by the end of the season.

Even the most naive of managers can go to hockeydb and see how Oshie has done in the past. Consistently around 60 points pro-rated around a full season.
Situation 1:
Will I trade him for no-name players who historically have been subpar, but are recently been producing? No, I'd rather bank on Oshie regressing back to the mean then trade him for a guy like Versteeg whose recent consistent production might be a fluke/short-lived.

Situation 2:
How about a guy like Nelson or Kucherov? They're PPG right now - they're no-name players but they're highly touted rookies that honestly could continue a similar level of production to where they are right now. However, Oshie is so tantalizing a player that I might not even trade him for either of those players because honestly, the comparison is so close that it's hard to say who would win by the end.

Situation 3:
The next tier is players who are already established and also under-performing. Why would a Kane or Landeskog owner trade their player for someone who's underperforming even further in Oshie?

Situation 4:
You're obviously not going to be able to trade Oshie for a player who is established and already performing well.

The consensus in these above scenarios is to either hold, hold/trade, hold or hold. The only scenario where a trade can feasibly occur is one that many people would be hard-pressed in determining a victor.

Hence, the overall consensus is that Oshie is best as a hold. As a hold, he is therefore no longer on the trade market. Consequently, he cannot be a "buy-low" because he is not up for sale.
I hope I've adequately explained my thought process to you as why Oshie is not a good trade target.

[Instant Karma]

Sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guarantee you... in some fantasy leagues out there, Oshie is being traded away for less than what he's worth. Not because GMs are idiots. Because GMs look at players differently. Some GMs are frustrated with Oshie. Some think he has lost his PP time permanently to the kids. Some are worried about his head. etc etc. Regardless of the reasons, some GMs will be willing to part with Oshie for less than his true inherent value. Maybe not in your leagues. But to just assume that he can't be acquired (because you wouldn't trade him) is a tad narcissistic.

Remember when everyone was crapping all over Malkin and Crosby because of their injury woes?
Under your theory, they wouldn't be good trade targets because all GMs knew their inherent value.

Instead, many savvy GMs recognized others would be frustrated and therefore willing to trade them for a discount.

I agree with most of this, but I'll point out that Oshie's "true inherent value" (which should really be put as his "perceived value"), is a bit harder to put your finger on than Crosby's and Malkin' were.

At least we knew that there were tremendous upsides there. Oshie? Not so much.

While I don't doubt that Oshie is indeed better than his current output (mostly because it couldn't be much worse), how much better is he? Was his success merely a product of St. Louis not having anything better to put out on their top line for the past couple of years, or not? We don't know this (or at least I don't), so I'm not sure what his "true inherent value" actually is going forward.

So I think your example of Crosby and Malkin here is a bit overblown, as it doesn't apply well to this case. This is a bit more subtle.

If I was an Oshie owner, I'd likely stick it out for a bit longer. As a buyer, I'd be interested as long as I didn't have to give up something that I might regret later.

[LakeSoup]

I agree with most of this, but I'll point out that Oshie's "true inherent value" (which should really be put as his "perceived value"), is a bit harder to put your finger on than Crosby's and Malkin' were.

At least we knew that there were tremendous upsides there. Oshie? Not so much.

While I don't doubt that Oshie is indeed better than his current output (mostly because it couldn't be much worse), how much better is he? Was his success merely a product of St. Louis not having anything better to put out on their top line for the past couple of years, or not? We don't know this (or at least I don't), so I'm not sure what his "true inherent value" actually is going forward.

So I think your example of Crosby and Malkin here is a bit overblown, as it doesn't apply well to this case. This is a bit more subtle.

If I was an Oshie owner, I'd likely stick it out for a bit longer. As a buyer, I'd be interested as long as I didn't have to give up something that I might regret later.

Yeah, Oshie definitely is more subtle.
Additionally, I really feel as if Mikko Koivu perfectly exemplifies what you've bolded. I think his decline is a result of that, and his age.

[SergeP]

I am thinking outside my own perspective. I'm simply trying to fit these buy-low, sell-highs in a reasonable context. Again, I'm rephrasing that this is not a thread where we are appraising how players are currently performing and whether or not they will continue at this pace toward the end of the season. This is not a thread where we are building arguments to deduct a player's point totals by the end of the season. This is a thread where posters provide their opinions on whether a certain transaction is fair and viable - in being able to provide a player that we think is over-performing in exchange for a player who is under-performing.

This involves 3 steps:
1) Identifying whether a player is under-performing
2) Matching this player with a player we identify is overperforming
3) Judge whether a transaction would be likely depending on a variety of things:
a) the rival manager's needs
b) whether or not current performance under a very small sample size is indicative of future performance
c) historical and current trends of these players
d) the name equity involved

So under some of the criteria I mentioned, I will use Oshie as my example. Yes, he's under-performing. Okay.
From the perspective of an owner, I can either hold OR trade him for a player who I think will outperform him by the end of the season.

Even the most naive of managers can go to hockeydb and see how Oshie has done in the past. Consistently around 60 points pro-rated around a full season.
Situation 1:
Will I trade him for no-name players who historically have been subpar, but are recently been producing? No, I'd rather bank on Oshie regressing back to the mean then trade him for a guy like Versteeg whose recent consistent production might be a fluke/short-lived.

Situation 2:
How about a guy like Nelson or Kucherov? They're PPG right now - they're no-name players but they're highly touted rookies that honestly could continue a similar level of production to where they are right now. However, Oshie is so tantalizing a player that I might not even trade him for either of those players because honestly, the comparison is so close that it's hard to say who would win by the end.

Situation 3:
The next tier is players who are already established and also under-performing. Why would a Kane or Landeskog owner trade their player for someone who's underperforming even further in Oshie?

Situation 4:
You're obviously not going to be able to trade Oshie for a player who is established and already performing well.

The consensus in these above scenarios is to either hold, hold/trade, hold or hold. The only scenario where a trade can feasibly occur is one that many people would be hard-pressed in determining a victor.

Hence, the overall consensus is that Oshie is best as a hold. As a hold, he is therefore no longer on the trade market. Consequently, he cannot be a "buy-low" because he is not up for sale.
I hope I've adequately explained my thought process to you as why Oshie is not a good trade target.

First, I can't see how anyone in their right minds would turn down Nelson or Kucherov for Oshie. For shame.

Second, your explanation missed what I feel is a key and very important "situation" when trying to buy low on a player and that's to trade a declining former star for a younger player who is struggling. MSL, for example, probably won't put up more than 60 points this year, which is right around Oshie's career average. Before the season started, most GM's would likely not have traded Oshie for MSL straight up, you're basically trading two players who project to put up roughly the same totals, only one of them is much, much older than the other. A quarter into the season however, Oshie has gotten off to a slow start whereas MSL is doing right around what you'd expect him to be doing. As such, now would likely be a good time for the MSL owner to make an offer if he/she assumes Oshie will one day not suck again.

[Instant Karma]

Yeah, I like "perceived value" better too.

As for the other part, you're forgetting the flipside. People were legimately concerned that Crosby and Malkin's careers were in jeopardy. Especially Crosby. So while you're correct about the tremendous upsides, don't forget that as bad as Oshie has been, his potential downside isn't as large as "never playing again."

No, I'm not forgetting it, merely pointing out that there was a pretty big carrot there to go along with the stick.

[Hoopo]

Buy Low:
Patrick Kane

yep. Someone in my league just flipped him for Rick Nash. Rick Nash! Ugh, **** this league.

[LakeSoup]

yep. Someone in my league just flipped him for Rick Nash. Rick Nash! Ugh, **** this league.

Honestly, in a 1 YR league that's almost fair...that's a pretty nice flip in a Keeper though.

[Axeman33]

I am surprised Jeff Skinner's name hasn't been dropped as a "buy-low".

[Avangard]

The biggest sell high might be Voracek right now. Trade him as a 100 point player, which he'll never top imo.

[2014olympicgold]

I really like Voracek, and I do think he can top PPG status this yr. But he’s the ultimate sell high. If he finishes at 82pts this yr (very fair estimate), it means he 53pts in 62 games (prorated to 70pts/82games). If you sell him now to anyone who will get PPG this yr, but started slow (15pts/20games), you could theoretically get 67pts in 62games (89pts/82games). This is just a numbers definition of sell high, buy low, but if both players finish at 82pts, you get an extra 14 pts by doing the trade.

In limited Keeper leagues some sell highs are:
Tarasenko, Lehtera, Forsberg, Voracek, Bozak, Holtby, Halak, Brodie, Shattenkirk, Vatenan
All these could continue the trend, but who knows. These are just guys out performing what people thought they would do. However, Tarasenko, Forsberg, Shattenkirk, and Vatenan, I don’t think I’m trading them.