[Rumour] Roger Millions hints Cammalleri asked for trade [MRG]

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by timbit

How do you or anybody else know the ONLY reason he was traded from LA was salary? Sounds like somebody close to the team told Ice differently.

It may not be the ONLY reason, but it was certainly a SUFFICIENT reason. It was reported at the time that Cammalleri was demanding $6m per season to re-sign with the Kings. I happen to remember that figure, because when he left Calgary to sign with Montreal, he got exactly the same figure. He is still on that contract.

Since the Kings weren't willing to pay him $6m a year, they were bound to trade him. If they had been a contender at the time, they might have kept him for one more playoff run and risked losing him for nothing. But they weren't, so they didn't. Any other reasons on top of that are gravy.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Have you not taken English at a high school level yet? One of the first things they teach you is that "in my opinion" is redundant.

It was to illustrate a point, not to ensure a discussion forum is grammically correct.

My apologies if I upset you as it seems i might have because you needed to make a personal attack in my direction about "high school" English.

Anything to add to this thread or just here for the personal attacks?

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Why is it substantiated? Because he says so? So in other words if I say I heard it was only salary from someone then my opinion would be better?

All I said was the poster who mentioned money was correct, because that's what Lombardi said in his presser post trade. However I guess the "substantial" evidence of " I heard from NHL players" hold more weight then what the GM said himself.

Why was the get over it thrown in there? Is that your attempt to illicite an emotion response from me on a topic that has nothing to do with my day to day life? If so consider it unsuccessful.
This is a discussion forum, people come here to discuss. Ice had some very good points for his side of the argument. The board would be very boring if everyone has the same opinion, and even though I do not agree with his (which is my right) I feel his point of view adds to the discussion.

As we should know well, sometimes Gms don't tell the whole truth, for.many reasons.

What would a player (s), after the fact, have anything to gain by sharing what he( they) did with Ice, regarding Cammallari demeanor and/ or attitude?

Your premise in your response to Ice seemed to indicate that the poster and/or the player(s) were not being honest.

How could you surmise that and take Lombardi 's limited response as gospel.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Why is it substantiated? Because he says so? So in other words if I say I heard it was only salary from someone then my opinion would be better?

All I said was the poster who mentioned money was correct, because that's what Lombardi said in his presser post trade. However I guess the "substantial" evidence of " I heard from NHL players" hold more weight then what the GM said himself.

Why was the get over it thrown in there? Is that your attempt to illicite an emotion response from me on a topic that has nothing to do with my day to day life? If so consider it unsuccessful.
This is a discussion forum, people come here to discuss. Ice had some very good points for his side of the argument. The board would be very boring if everyone has the same opinion, and even though I do not agree with his (which is my right) I feel his point of view adds to the discussion.

Just an FYI, that adds nothing of importance to the discussion, but I'm female.

[Flash Walken]

Maybe the same reason they traded him was the same reason they felt he wasn't worth the money?

Seems like it's two teams who have come to that conclusion now. Soon to be a third?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Kotalik in the minors for a long time.
Hagman in the minors, and then purposefully exposed to re-entry waivers already knowing Anaheim were going to snatch him (essentially keeping paying 50%)
Nilson to Europe
Kronwall signed to a one-way deal

I am sure there are others. Calgary has been very willing to 'hide' money on the Heat or in Europe in the past.

I think this whole thing comes up because people are convinced the Flames got rid of Kotalik (and paid the hefty price of a 2nd) to unload his salary because the 'owners didn't want to pay it', but Feaster has come out and said that Tanguay had to be signed, and then that offer for Richards. Add the money up, and it makes sense. Look back in history, and it also makes sense.

Flames were also one of the first (or the very first) to hide a player in Europe. Nilson was 'helped' to find a contract there. At the time (not sure if it is still like this or not) , the Flames would have to pay the difference of their NHL contract and their European contract.

They didn't play hardball with Phaneuf either - that was a big jump in salary (and you can argue whether that was right or wrong, but there was no problem on the owner's part there).

The 'cheapskate' tag has been placed on the Flames' owners, but all the evidence indicates otherwise as far as I know. Maybe I am missing something, but the owners have greatly expanded scouting, coaching, front office and have on numerous times exceeded the salary cap by millions hiding players on the Heat.

Great post.

Once again actual facts overcome negative emotions.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FAN

There's a difference between sending down a player deemed not good enough to be on the roster and "hiding" money the way the Rangers hid Redden, the way the Sharks absorbed Malakhov's contract, the way Canucks absorbed Reinprecht's contract, and the way some teams used LTIR room to add salary. For what it's worth, the Flames simply have not "hid" money for cap room purposes or for asset acquisition purposes the way some teams have.

Having someone pick up Hagman on re-entry waivers actually saves the Flames money because Hagman lost his place on the Flames and having someone pick him up saves the Flames from paying him. Kotalik is the same deal, except he wasn't picked up. The Kronwall example is like the PLLL example. I wouldn't even consider sending down a player making near minimum on a one way contract to be "hiding" money. Helping a player get a contract in Europe usually saves the team from paying his salary or at least the full amount of it.


Feaster said many things including saying the 2nd was for Byron. There's also the rumor that the Flames refused to keep part of Bouwmeester's salary in return for a prospect like Rattie.


So it saved the Flames money to have Nilson play in Europe.


Flash Walken said the owners had no problems spending to the cap, the owners just seem to have a problem paying a player to play somewhere else. That's not unusual. Different people have different values. Some care about where the money is spent while others just care about the final budget. Personally, I don't think less of the owners for not willing to take on the salary of a player that will not be playing for the Flames, but I have a problem if the team throws away assets just to get rid of salary.


I don't think the owners are cheapskates at all and I don't think that tag has been placed on the Flames' owners. They've been willing to spend to the cap which as a fan I'm very thankful for. With that said, there's no telling how hard Darryl had to fight for many of those expansions. And I think you are wrong about the exceeding salary cap by millions by hiding players on the Heat part. The Flames didn't add salary when they sent Kotalik or Hagman down, except for the cost of calling up a player on a two-way contract.

There are owners who simply open their check book and tells the GM to simply do what needs to be done, just win me the Cup and there are owners who need to be explained the reasons for the increased costs. The Flames' owners seem to be the type who needs to be convinced to spend. We need to have our own AHL affiliate? Why? Ok. We need to increase the number of scouts? Why? Ok. So we want to re-sign this player? Ok. You want to make this offer to Brad Richards? That's a lot of upfront money. Ok. We will be paying for Kotalik to play in the AHL next season as well? No. Find a way to get rid of his salary.

This is the very first I have heard about the refusal of the Flames in retaining a part of Bouwmeester's salary for Rattie. As far as I remember, it was 100% fan speculation on what that return would look like. I have not read a single media statement from any source - even the usual suspects of rumor mongers - saying that Rattie was ever on the table, and it fell through because of the Flames' refusal to retain salary. I think this was 100% pure fan speculation on forums as many posters wanted Rattie as part of the return.

Cap space avoidance - weren't the Flames one of the very first teams to start using these front-loaded contracts? Kipper's first year on his new contract paid him almost 3 million more than his cap hit. Flames were a cap team every year of Kipper's contract if memory serves, and only in the past year of his contract was it lower (and then, only marginally so - the remaining year is the year it got drastically lower).

My Nilson example. By your take on it, the owners were not willing to pay Nilson's contract, so sending him to Europe was in a way 'subsidizing' it. Well, if they were so intent on getting rid of his salary, why wouldn't they put pressure on Sutter and have Nilson packaged up with something like a 2nd or 3rd (or whatever his salary was worth - can't remember off-hand) and get it completely off the books?

Brad Richard's Pitch - They out-bid New York Rangers. They OUT-BID THE FRICKEN' NEW YORK RANGERS. What would he be getting paid.. 12 million the first season? Flames would have still been a cap team, with another salary that far exceeded the cap hit.

Kotalik was traded to get rid of the salary - you can't hide players in the minors in the off-season, but the NHL gives you 10% tagging room. This is why Kotalik had to be traded (and Regehr) while taking minimal return. They needed to fit Glencross, Tanguay and the Brad Richards' contract within the confines of it.

What was the reason Kotalik went to the minors? Why wasn't he simply a healthy scratch? Feaster wanted that cap flexibility to take in a player from another team that needed to unload salary (or claim someone he thought would be able to help off waivers if that opportunity arose). When Feaster asked ownership, not only did they say yes, but they volunteered Hagman and Stajan if he needed it. They were very willing to absorb salary. Just because Feaster ended up being all talk without much action, had little to do with the owners will to spend.

To clarify that Regehr/Kotalik trade: Yes, the second was for Byron OR for Buffalo to accept Kotalik.

The original deal was Regehr for Byron and Butler. Flames wanted salary cap relief and tried to add Kotalik. Buffalo removed Byron. Flames had to add a 2nd to keep Byron as part of the deal, or to have Buffalo take Kotalik (answer is both). However, the reasoning behind it was not that the owners refused to pay Kotalik in the minors, but because there was simply no way to sign Glencross, Tanguay and especially that huge offer for Richards (we out-bid NYR once again, to put things in perspective).

I am sure for anyone that really has the time and effort, they can go through the last 'x' number of years since the Flames have become a cap team, and figure out how much more Flames were spending on salaries, add up all the one-way contracts on the Heat they were holding (yes, no huge "Reddens"), and come up with a year by year number of how much the owners were spending over the cap by. Compare that with all other teams in the league and see where they rank. I am betting they rank pretty high.

[Flash Walken]

I think you're building a straw man here.

The Flames have been a cap team, have used the loop holes necessary to exceed the spirit of the cap. As a fan, that's very commendable.

I don't see them spending millions of dollars so a player can play somewhere else and help a competing franchise.

Placing Hagman on waiviers and paying out 50 percent of his salary vs. 100 percent is not a ringing endorsement of their desire pay out money to bury contracts in the minors. Neither is signing a depth defender to 525k in a salary capped world of 50 million, one way deal or otherwise.

They've certainly thrown money around in free agency, and apparently have spent more money on scouting and related technologies. As a fan, I'd say that's commendable too.

So far, though, they haven't traded for any boat anchors with prospect/pick life preservers attached to them. It's certainly too early to say they won't, but the track record isn't there to suggest that they will. That's too bad, because it would be the best way to jumpstart a rebuild that I am sure ownership is hoping to be quick.

Some people might say they're cheap, but it's not my argument.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Ice

However, some players are not cut out for participating in a rebuild and he is one of them. Lombardi knew it, and resolved the issue by trading him. Cammy was looking for money, but he didn't want to sign with the Kings during a rebuild anymore than the Kings didn't want to pay him 5 million.

That's just silly. Cammy was 26 at the time and he was on a team that was clearly up and coming with Kopitar and Brown there (even if Cammy foresaw that Frolov and O'Sullivan wouldn't be any good). No 26 year old on that team if given a fat long-term contract would not want to be there because they don't want to go through a rebuild.

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Kyuss was correct about money. That is the only reason Cammy was traded.

I agree, although I don't understand the fuss made over whether the "only" reason Cammy was traded it was because of money. You can say it's always just about the money or you can say it's never just about the money. It's like if Letang decided he wants Weber money and the Pens decided to trade him. Is it about the money? Does it matter?

All I know is here was no indication that Cammy wanted out of LA. There was every indication that he was going to test free agency no matter what. In the end Cammy went to the highest bidder, that's a fact. So if you have an asset like a 26 year old Cammy and you know he's going to test free agency and you're unsure whether he will sign at the price you're willing to pay, then trading him is all about money and also not all about money because it's hockey and business decision.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think you're building a straw man here.

The Flames have been a cap team, have used the loop holes necessary to exceed the spirit of the cap. As a fan, that's very commendable.

I don't see them spending millions of dollars so a player can play somewhere else and help a competing franchise.

Placing Hagman on waiviers and paying out 50 percent of his salary vs. 100 percent is not a ringing endorsement of their desire pay out money to bury contracts in the minors. Neither is signing a depth defender to 525k in a salary capped world of 50 million, one way deal or otherwise.

They've certainly thrown money around in free agency, and apparently have spent more money on scouting and related technologies. As a fan, I'd say that's commendable too.

So far, though, they haven't traded for any boat anchors with prospect/pick life preservers attached to them. It's certainly too early to say they won't, but the track record isn't there to suggest that they will. That's too bad, because it would be the best way to jumpstart a rebuild that I am sure ownership is hoping to be quick.

Some people might say they're cheap, but it's not my argument.

Just having (and attempting at the Richards' one) those cap-circumvention deals while still being tight against the cap those years should be enough to dispel the notion that the Flames owners are not willing to spend beyond the cap.

Allowing Feaster to bury Kotalik (and offering up Hagman and Stajan as well) in order to shed cap space to acquire additional players also does this.

They used all the loopholes possible in order to exceed the cap in an effort to win, and that was my original point.

This off-season will be telling how they spend the space, and how much they use up in an effort to expedite the rebuild. I doubt the Flames will be a cap team, but I bet they use a portion of that space in the way most fans are hoping, but maybe not to the level we wish.

Found 'something' about the Salaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lls_in_the_NHL

The Calgary Flames hold the unique distinction of being the only team to have increased their payroll every year between the 1998–99 season and the 2007–08 season.

Rangers, Philly and Colorado were the only 3 teams in the league with higher salaries for 2007-2008 (the last year referenced team-by-team).

NJ was the ONLY team to out-spend the team in 2006-07.

So the owners haven't added a Wade Redden type contract to the minors (but all NHL contracts are calculated here - including the ones in the minors it seems), but they spent more on salaries than almost every team for what I managed to get numbers for anyways, and isn't that the real point of this off-topic discussion? Would be nice to see the next 5 years' worth of numbers though.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is the very first I have heard about the refusal of the Flames in retaining a part of Bouwmeester's salary for Rattie... I think this was 100% pure fan speculation on forums

I is probably 100% pure fan speculation, but the reputation of the Flames' owners being cheapskates as you alluded to is probably 100% fan speculation as well.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Cap space avoidance

You're missing the point. No one is saying Flames ownership aren't willing to spend to the Cap. Both Flash Walken and I have tried getting this point to you. So you're really just arguing against yourself.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

My Nilson example. By your take on it, the owners were not willing to pay Nilson's contract, so sending him to Europe was in a way 'subsidizing' it. Well, if they were so intent on getting rid of his salary, why wouldn't they put pressure on Sutter and have Nilson packaged up with something like a 2nd or 3rd (or whatever his salary was worth - can't remember off-hand) and get it completely off the books?

Well I believe the Flames were already without a 2nd and 3rd round pick and those type of deals are hard to make. If a deal was able to be worked out it was better for both the player and the team.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

What was the reason Kotalik went to the minors? Why wasn't he simply a healthy scratch? Feaster wanted that cap flexibility to take in a player from another team that needed to unload salary (or claim someone he thought would be able to help off waivers if that opportunity arose). When Feaster asked ownership, not only did they say yes, but they volunteered Hagman and Stajan if he needed it. They were very willing to absorb salary. Just because Feaster ended up being all talk without much action, had little to do with the owners will to spend.

This is the first time I heard that ownership "volunteered" Stajan. Like hey if you need to send Stajan down to the AHL that's okay? As for Kotalik, he was sent to the minors instead of being a healthy scratch because the team still wanted to make the playoffs and wanted the roster spot. Demoting a player on a one-way contract midseason making substantial money ($3M in this case) is usually out of necessity and doesn't show a willingness to absorb salary unless that player is replaced with similar salary (Kotalik was not).

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by FAN

I is probably 100% pure fan speculation, but the reputation of the Flames' owners being cheapskates as you alluded to is probably 100% fan speculation as well. Flames owners do NOT have a reputation of being cheapskates. Some posters (not naming you or Flash) feel that they are, and yes, fan speculation.


You're missing the point. No one is saying Flames ownership aren't willing to spend to the Cap. Both Flash Walken and I have tried getting this point to you. So you're really just arguing against yourself. Your argument is that the owners would not spend BEYOND the cap. My previous post proves not only proves they would. We are not arguing that they would spend to the cap - BEYOND the cap is what we are arguing about.


Well I believe the Flames were already without a 2nd and 3rd round pick and those type of deals are hard to make. If a deal was able to be worked out it was better for both the player and the team. I have no idea what draft picks they were missing that year, but there are other ways to trade excess salary. Package deals, minor prospect, etc. If the owners were indeed NOT willing to absorb salary as you state, they would have opted to make one of these trades rather than continue paying whatever portion of Nilson's contract $ were left.


This is the first time I heard that ownership "volunteered" Stajan. Like hey if you need to send Stajan down to the AHL that's okay? As for Kotalik, he was sent to the minors instead of being a healthy scratch because the team still wanted to make the playoffs and wanted the roster spot. Demoting a player on a one-way contract midseason making substantial money ($3M in this case) is usually out of necessity and doesn't show a willingness to absorb salary unless that player is replaced with similar salary (Kotalik was not). Owners did in fact volunteer Stajan and Hagman to be sent down - Feaster spoke of this in one of the STH sessions. Also, they sent Kotalik down why exactly? As far as I recall, there was no need of the roster spot, and Kotalik could have just continued being a healthy scratch. It was in an effort by Feaster in his fabled first attempt at getting out of cap jail and "taking advantage of another team in a trade" that needed to unload salary, or add an impact high-salaried player.

Response above in bold.

[Johnny Rotten]

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/hocke...valier/2127165

So Vinny could be bought out. Would it be worth a gamble (and it would be a gamble) for the Flames to try to acquire Vinny? Maybe for Cammy (one year left at 6 million) and the possibility to acquire a pick or two (2nd rounder)?

This from the Tampa Bay Times article above:

"Lecavalier has a no-move clause. His salary is steep. And because for the next four seasons his salary exceeds his cap hit, an acquiring team — under a complicated formula in the new CBA, and according to capgeek.com, which tracks such trends — would be subject to cap penalties if Lecavalier retires more than one year before his contract expires in 2020. The "recapture" rule is part of the league's attempt to discourage long-term, front-loaded contracts set up to provide salary cap relief.
Under the same provision, the Lightning already faces penalties if Lecavalier retires early, even if he is traded, because his $10 million salary in each of the first four years of his contract exceeded his salary cap hit. Tampa Bay potentially faces higher penalties if Lecavalier remains with the team and the disparity between his accrued salary and salary cap hits widen, though if he fulfills his contract no penalties apply.
It is a dizzying array of factors."

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/hocke...valier/2127165

So Vinny could be bought out. Would it be worth a gamble (and it would be a gamble) for the Flames to try to acquire Vinny? Maybe for Cammy (one year left at 6 million) and the possibility to acquire a pick or two (2nd rounder)?

."

No thanks, way to much salary is remaining on the players contract....

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Your argument is that the owners would not spend BEYOND the cap. My previous post proves not only proves they would. We are not arguing that they would spend to the cap - BEYOND the cap is what we are arguing about.

You missed my argument. Like I said, sending down a player deemed not good enough to be on the roster isn't the type of purposeful "hiding" of money that Flash Walken and I are talking about. For example, Redden was in the AHL all those years purely because he was deemed not good enough for his cap hit and not because he wasn't good enough to be in the NHL. Kotalik was deemed not good enough to be on the roster. He would still be sent down if he was making the league minimum the same way Conroy was sent down. There are different motivations at play.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I have no idea what draft picks they were missing that year, but there are other ways to trade excess salary. Package deals, minor prospect, etc. If the owners were indeed NOT willing to absorb salary as you state, they would have opted to make one of these trades rather than continue paying whatever portion of Nilson's contract $ were left.

I'm telling you that based on my dd, the Flames didn't have a 2nd and 3rd round pick at the time. Regardless, giving up assets to get rid of salary is something that isn't easy to do, otherwise it would have been done more often. And like I said, there are different values involved. Darryl might be opposed to giving away say a draft pick or prospect just so someone takes a contract off their hands. And there is a difference between paying a guy $500K-$1M in salary (your examples) to have him play in the AHL and $3M.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Owners did in fact volunteer Stajan and Hagman to be sent down - Feaster spoke of this in one of the STH sessions. Also, they sent Kotalik down why exactly? As far as I recall, there was no need of the roster spot, and Kotalik could have just continued being a healthy scratch. It was in an effort by Feaster in his fabled first attempt at getting out of cap jail and "taking advantage of another team in a trade" that needed to unload salary, or add an impact high-salaried player.

Feaster talks a lot, but I'll take your word for it. Still, it's surprising that Feaster would even mention Stajan's name as that's equivalent to throwing Stajan under the bus.

You keep asking why Kotalik was sent down. He sucked and was deemed not good enough to be on the team. How clear can that be? Feaster's official explanation was that he wanted to promote young players who deserved it and not for adding a high-salaried player. In terms of roster spots, there's always a need for roster spots. If I recall correctly, Conroy was demoted before Kotalik so Staios can come back, and I think Kotalik was sent down to make room for Langkow as well. That's not counting the AHL callups. The team wants to win and having Kotalik on the roster was deemed to not further that goal. Again, different motivations at play.

The Flames tried hard to get rid of Kotalik's salary without buying him out or giving up assets to get rid of him. Kotalik was actually placed on waivers in the summer by Darryl and fully expected a buyout. He wasn't bought out. He was later placed on waivers by Feaster and assigned to the AHL and was promptly placed on re-entry waivers. Kotalik cleared waivers but was not recalled. Kotalik was later placed on re-entry waivers again and was then called up and later assigned back down. Clearly, the preference was to have Kotalik picked up by another team even if it's on re-entry waivers (which would result in Kotalik's cap hit being on the books).

Again, there's no argument that the Flames ownership wanted to win and were willing to spend to the cap in order to do so. Don't confuse that with Flames' willingness to pay someone to play in the AHL in return for a better deal.

[FightinSioux]

I saw on hf boards a Cammy for Burmistrov proposal straight up.... I thought it was interesting as he has high potential and is a centreman. Didnt think it was so bad and was drafted in 10' What do others think?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by FightinSioux

I saw on hf boards a Cammy for Burmistrov proposal straight up.... I thought it was interesting as he has high potential and is a centreman. Didnt think it was so bad and was drafted in 10' What do others think?

I like Burmistrov and Winnipeg is a good destination for Cammy. If it happened I would be happy.

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by FightinSioux

I saw on hf boards a Cammy for Burmistrov proposal straight up.... I thought it was interesting as he has high potential and is a centreman. Didnt think it was so bad and was drafted in 10' What do others think?

I think that is not getting enough for Cammy. Besides, this team is now log-jammed with so-so centermen, why add another ?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by cowtown75

I think that is not getting enough for Cammy. Besides, this team is now log-jammed with so-so centermen, why add another ?

Commited defensively and has been by all accounts misused in Winnipeg. Also has the "rushed too early" tag on him like Nino. Good on faceoffs.

Honestly I think having three young talented centers like Burmistrov, Backlund and Knight would be very beneficial to the Flames. Also, in the event of the Flames grabbing Nichushkin at the draft, we may need a person to act as translater/english teacher.

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Commited defensively and has been by all accounts misused in Winnipeg. Also has the "rushed too early" tag on him like Nino. Good on faceoffs.

Honestly I think having three young talented centers like Burmistrov, Backlund and Knight would be very beneficial to the Flames. Also, in the event of the Flames grabbing Nichushkin at the draft, we may need a person to act as translater/english teacher.

So what about Jones, Reinhart, Horak, and I believe I'm forgetting a couple of other possibilities besides Stajan ?