[Trade] Glencross to Washington for a 2015 2nd and 2015 3rd round pick (WSH) (Archive) - Page 56 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Caged Great · 02-22-2015, 10:23 PM

I would much rather lose a player like Cammy if that means getting full value for Glencross and all the future vets that will be dealt. Especially after getting less than full value for Regehr, Iginla, Bouwmeester and Tanguay. The value we got for those four was about right if you still had Iginla left to trade after dealing the other 3. It was simply pissed away value because of excuses like we needed money to sign Brad Richards, which we didn't, or Tanguay was a bad locker room presence (I agree, but we could have got more than David Jones)

Plus with how the deadline went last year, a 2nd for Cammy probably would've been top value so the fact that they got that for Berra helps.

sureLoss · 02-22-2015, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Edit^^^Responding to Sureloss.

So you say no. If a player is actually worth something the offers will be there.

Then I fail to see your problem with this. Burke got offers below what he thought the value of Cammy was. He said no.

dammage79 · 02-22-2015, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingmaker

Players are not chess pieces, no matter how much fans want them to be. Part of the net result of Burke not selling low on Cammalleri is that he got hot down the stretch and helped Calgary finish the year strong and go into the summer feeling a sense of hope for the future. You can argue that there is no value in this if you want, but Burke showed his players that he valued them and would not give them away for nothing and they played hard for the rest of the year. Cammy leaves, but the rest of the team comes into camp feeling good about what happened last year. Of course there is no knowing what would have happened if Cammy had been traded, and there is no way of knowing if what happpened last year had any affect on this year. But often when you work from a position of principles and respect, there is a positive outcome, even on a micro level. To me, that is far more valuable than a third round pick.

Cammy got hot conventiently after the deadline. Was stone cold the weeks heading into deadline day. Burke didn't sell low because there was a log jam with Vanek, Gaborik and Moulson. He did say he had a three way trade n place but they couldnt get the league on the phone in time.

Sandman · 02-22-2015, 10:25 PM

Alot of hockey pundits/insiders/broadcasters etc talked and/or wrote about this the day after the deadline passed, and most seemed to agree with Burke's strategy.

Mightyfire89 · 02-22-2015, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Then I fail to see your problem with this. Burke got offers below what he thought the value of Cammy was. He said no.

Sure, but in that situation, it made no sense to be stubborn and say no, given that the team wasn't making the playoffs anyway. They should have taken something that they were offered instead of losing him for free. This year, for example, it's different and I wouldn't give Glencross away for nothing because he could help the team down the stretch and hopefully, into the playoffs. So in this situation you can be more picky.

wingmaker · 02-22-2015, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dammage79

Cammy got hot conventiently after the deadline. Was stone cold the weeks heading into deadline day. Burke didn't sell low because there was a log jam with Vanek, Gaborik and Moulson. He did say he had a three way trade n place but they couldnt get the league on the phone in time.

I get that. I understand that Burke was trying to trade him. My point is that he valued Cammalleri more than just dumping him for a low pick. By deciding that it was worth more to keep the player and possibly re-sign him than it was to trade him for whatever the going rate was, Burke contributed to what happened after the deadline, which was that the team continued to play well and to win games. It is a small thing but sometimes small things can have much bigger consequences that are realized.

sureLoss · 02-22-2015, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Sure, but in that situation, it made no sense to be stubborn and say no, given that the team wasn't making the playoffs anyway. They should have taken something that they were offered instead of losing him for free. This year, for example, it's different and I wouldn't give Glencross away for nothing because he could help the team down the stretch and hopefully, into the playoffs. So in this situation you can be more picky.

But then again the next time the Flames don't make the playoffs you get lowball offers because the other teams know you are willing to take anything for your pending UFAs.

If you were selling watches on the street for $50 at 8 am and I watch you everday drop the price of the watch to $5 by 5 pm just so you make some money for that day, why would I ever pay you $50 the next time I need a watch?

Mightyfire89 · 02-22-2015, 10:46 PM

Ok, I give up. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

JiriHrdina · 02-22-2015, 10:46 PM

Hmmm I think the reverse could also be said. People have made some very clear and valid points that you seem to be ignoring.

sureLoss · 02-22-2015, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Ok, I give up. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

No I think I understand what you are saying.

You are saying the context of making the playoffs or not is whether you are willing to lose a free agent for nothing.

I am telling you that GMs are smart enough to know that context and the next time you are not in the playoffs they are going to take advantage of the fact that you are not willing to lose an UFA for nothing by not offering a lot.

Wastedyouth · 02-22-2015, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureloss

no i think i understand what you are saying.

You are saying the context of making the playoffs or not is whether you are willing to lose a free agent for nothing.

I am telling you that gms are smart enough to know that context and the next time you are not in the playoffs they are going to take advantage of the fact that you are not willing to lose an ufa for nothing by not offering a lot.

fyp.

Mightyfire89 · 02-22-2015, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

No I think I understand what you are saying.

You are saying the context of making the playoffs or not is whether you are willing to lose a free agent for nothing.

I am telling you that GMs are smart enough to know that context and the next time you are not in the playoffs they are going to take advantage of the fact that you are not willing to lose an UFA for nothing by not offering a lot.

And I'm saying taking something at the deadline once doesn't mean you can't say no the next time you get an offer you deem unacceptable.

sureLoss · 02-22-2015, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

And I'm saying taking something at the deadline once doesn't mean you can't say no the next time you get an offer you deem unacceptable.

THEN I DON'T GET WHY BURKE SAYING NO THIS ONE TIME IS A PROBLEM FOR YOU.

Sorry for all caps but I seriously don't get it, Burke got an offer that was unacceptable. Does it matter he said No for Cammy or No for someone 2/3/4/5 years from now?

Mightyfire89 · 02-22-2015, 11:22 PM

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on this. I see it as maximizing assets. Not making the playoffs? Get what you can for an expiring contract. Making the playoffs? Be more picky, if you don't get what you deem acceptable? Say no if you think that player can still help you.

JohnnyT · 02-22-2015, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on this. I see it as maximizing assets. Not making the playoffs? Get what you can for an expiring contract. Making the playoffs? Be more picky, if you don't get what you deem acceptable? Say no if you think that player can still help you.

What sureloss is saying is its not that simple and leads to you not maximizing your assets. Just because you're not making the playoffs doesn't mean you should accept whatever because the league will take note of that. Say you aren't making the playoffs and trade two of your less than stellar pending UFAs for a 5th and 7th. Then next year you aren't making the playoffs again, but you feel you have a stronger UFA this year and begin asking around for 2nd, now teams know that have a tendency to get whatever you can for UFAs so they start offering 7ths, 6ths, 5ths, maybe a bidding war starts but under you system you accept the highest pick you get offered, lets call it an 5th. Now you have reputation of always getting rid of your UFAs no matter what and team will try to bleed you dry because of that.

Alternatively, many would argue if you trade one of those players for a 2nd thats a better return than 3 late round picks

FlamesPuck12 · 02-22-2015, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Well, I guess we're never going to agree on this. I see it as maximizing assets. Not making the playoffs? Get what you can for an expiring contract. Making the playoffs? Be more picky, if you don't get what you deem acceptable? Say no if you think that player can still help you.

Let's say we traded Cammy for anything we could get. Next time the Flames missed the playoffs, the GMs know that you'll trade your expiring players for anything.

So other GMs give you some crap offer like a 7th round pick. You can say no, but other GMs might call your bluff since they know you'll want to trade the expiring asset for anything. So either you get a really crap offer or you get nothing at all (if you don't do the trade).

Since we didn't trade Cammy for a 3rd rounder, the next time the Flames miss the playoffs, other GMs won't try to lowball you since they know that if they lowball you, you just won't trade with them (and they'll miss out on a good rental player).

Buck Murdock · 02-22-2015, 11:42 PM

I think last year was a down year, but gaborik demonstrated how valuable rentals can be. Hopefully this year is better and teams pay up for pending ufa's to help a cup run.

googol · 02-22-2015, 11:43 PM

I agree with Jimmy on this one.
If we are not making the playoffs, we should maximize our assets.
We take the best we can get in the current market. If the plan was to re-sign Cammy or have him mentor the young players then not doing the trade for a 3rd was likely a good idea.

The rumor has it that 15 teams are interested in Glencross, do you really think if we traded Cammy, that everyone of those teams would low ball us and miss on the chance of loading up for a playoff run? It's a seller's market this year unlike the previous.

sureLoss · 02-22-2015, 11:48 PM

Jimmy's logic doesn't even make sense.

Maximize assets by taking whatever you can if you are not making the playoffs. But wait! If the offer is unacceptable don't take anything!

Rerun · 02-22-2015, 11:51 PM

A player is worth whatever someone is willing to pay... Not what you THINK they should pay. If you can't get what you feel you deserve then your price is too high. Lower your price and make the sale. However those buyers that are really lowballing you are also taking the chance that someone will swoop in with a better offer and you lose a player that you really wanted/needed on your team. Kind of like making an offer on a new house.