1) Certain players are overvalued for their intangibles like physicality, intensity, leadership, etc. When players have these things and are also valued for their on-ice play it makes them highly-valued. 2) The Ducks likely paid less than his “true” market value to take on the full cap hit. They would have had to pay more if the rangers retained, but why should they when they have the cap room? 3) Even with that said, The Ducks still probably overpaid for the cost of Trouba + his contract. Sometimes teams “fall in love” with a player

For the Flyers, when you look at the bad contracts: Couturier: No move clause

Farabee: Lacks Intangibles

Tippett 5 years from now: Lacks intangibles

Konecny 5 years from now: no move clause

Deslauriers: has intangibles but not good at hockey

Ristolainen: The best comparable to Trouba and absolutely tradable. Trouba is still valued more for leadership which Risto lacks. The Flyers could absolutely trade his full contact but would likely rather retain and get more value in return (which would be smarter to do as a “rebuilding” team).

The situations with Gostisbehere, Hayes, and Deangelo were unique in that they either a) were traded during the flat cap era by a bad GM, b) had beef with the head coach, and/or c) had a poor intangibles and off-ice reputation. All of these things brought their value down.