[News] Cammalleri has NOT been traded. Upd: Cammalleri likely heading to free agency

[Wolfman]

After seeing the returns Vanek and Moulson got, I'm glad we didn't toss Cammy away for scraps like the Vanek deal. Snow will be fired over that deal for sure. I hope Cammy resigns in the range of 3-4 years at 4-4.5m.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Agree with those saying Burke's comments on reputation are full of crap. There is no logic or proof to it.

You could just as easily claim something like this will give the team the reputation of being hard to deal with and reduce teams that come around next trade deadline for example. It's grasping at straws to rationalize a dumb move.

Even a 4th would have been better than losing him for nothing and clogging up a roster spot a young guy should be trialling in for the last 20.

As someone who has been a professional trader for a long time, I do not think it is crap at all.

And in fact, I think the Flames have suffered from this for a while - they can't get value in trades because other teams know they will take less.

[Enoch Root]

Honestly, I think the biggest issue here is that people like trades and wanted trades and when they didn't get the big one, they are butt-hurt. Regardless of what the return may have been.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It's not weak at all (ironic choice of words). Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also, it is not a certainty that they will get nothing for him. If so, that's the way it goes. But we don't know that that is the case at this point.

I think everybody gets it, people just don't buy it. It's just a narrative he made up with no actual proof. Here are a couple more that have just as much proof:

- eating an asset for nothing will give the team a reputation of being hard to deal with and next year a few teams won't even bother calling/offering.

- the team will get a reputation of overvaluing players and get less calls/offers.

I just theorized and threw those out there, just like Burke did to cover his butt. They are just as likely. Hey the sky isn't falling or anything, it's a 3rd/4th rounf pick, just a lot of people see through the everything I do has a reason narrative. Some good deals but he dropped the ball here. Assets > Sticking to your guns

[strombad]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't buy this logic at all. I've seen it repeated by lots of posters in the last couple days, but someone is going to have to convince me that there is any value in this kind of posturing.



The fact is, in my eyes the value of Cammalleri to the Flames right now is zero. Taking anything would be a good transaction for the Flames. I don't see how holding out for more than whatever was offered is worth anything in future trade negotiations. If anything it will make people think we are overvaluing our rentals and won't bother next time.



Maybe as someone running an nhl franchise, they do see some value in having decent nhl players on the ice to play in front of the fans that are still paying $100 a game. Maybe that is worth not taking a 3rd rounder if that was all that was on the table.



I don't buy that holding out in any way helps our negotiating stance in the future. I don't buy that it was in any way worthwhile to hold on to him in case he re-signs. Sign him before the deadline, or give up on it.

You may not buy any of those things, but nobody is trying to sell you on it. Nobody needs to convince you of what the respectably basic truth is. If you allow yourself to be a pushover, people will treat you like a pushover. It's not being sold to anyone, that's just a fact of life.

Originally Posted by New Era

So you wouldn't like another Kanzig or Gillies or Gaudreau or Ramage or Arnold in the system, rather than nothing? That mentality is exactly why our system was total garbage before Feaster took over. Sutter gave away too many picks and sat on too many players rather than keep the picks and prospects rolling into the system. An asset is an asset and without them you have nothing to build with.



This whole Burke-respected-hard-negotiator narrative is weak. If this is his mindset Burke is more concerned about his ego than the future of the Calgary Flames. The Flames need assets to make deals and keep the system stocked. Burke elected to give up an asset, a draft pick, for 20 games of Mike Cammalleri. I don't see that as being a shrewd negotiator. I see that as a short sighted decision that hurt the organization.

Perhaps you should hold off on the definitives before making your judgement. Cammalleri is STILL an asset to us. There are still viable options to us:

- Sign to extension
- Trade negotiating rights (for pick)
- Trade negotiating rights for another player's negotiating rights

Burke did not give up an asset for 20 games of Cammalleri, and the way you use definitives to drive home your humble opinion makes it just as valid for anyone else to say "We WILL sign Cammalleri to an extension and be able to revisit a trade in the future."

I KNOW you don't like Cammy or Burke, but the Flames need somebody to pay. Trust me, you're going to find a lot more Cammalleris and Widemans on the market than you will Hudlers and Giordanos. Stop being so definitive, relax. Some unworthy player is going to get paid by us, at this point it's the devil you know vs the devil you don't.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I think everybody gets it, people just don't buy it. It's just a narrative he made up with no actual proof. Here are a couple more that have just as much proof:

- eating an asset for nothing will give the team a reputation of being hard to deal with and next year a few teams won't even bother calling/offering.

- the team will get a reputation of overvaluing players and get less calls/offers.

I just theorized and threw those out there, just like Burke did to cover his butt. They are just as likely. Hey the sky isn't falling or anything, it's a 3rd/4th rounf pick, just a lot of people see through the everything I do has a reason narrative. Some good deals but he dropped the ball here. Assets > Sticking to your guns

So you honestly believe that in life, being a pushover will not ever lead to people taking advantage of you?

How do you know it was even a 3rd or 4th round pick?

People on the anti side of this argument keep on bringing up 3rd round picks like it was a given, were you there? You don't know the offers, but the bottom line was that they weren't good enough. Or maybe they were, and the other side didn't pull the trigger fast enough. You don't know why he didn't get traded, so stop pretending like you do. Burke didn't immediately take whatever lowball offer was presented, and in the end, the negotiating rights to Cammalleri were worth more than whatever was being offered. It's pretty simple and basic, but apparently the crowd against it needs to make things up in order to have a problem with it.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by strombad

So you honestly believe that in life, being a pushover will not ever lead to people taking advantage of you?

How do you know it was even a 3rd or 4th round pick?

People on the anti side of this argument keep on bringing up 3rd round picks like it was a given, were you there? You don't know the offers, but the bottom line was that they weren't good enough. Or maybe they were, and the other side didn't pull the trigger fast enough. You don't know why he didn't get traded, so stop pretending like you do. Burke didn't immediately take whatever lowball offer was presented, and in the end, the negotiating rights to Cammalleri were worth more than whatever was being offered. It's pretty simple and basic, but apparently the crowd against it needs to make things up in order to have a problem with it.

I have a hard time buying, that next year a totally different GM will have a reputation of not being a pushover because of Burke turning down a deal he though was undervalue. Also I think the two random theories I threw out there have just as much likelihood.

Also I think any actual price to the franchise in terms of assets is not worth a questionable reputational tradeoff for your trading ability.

Both sides are guessing at value, it could be a 2nd, it could be a 5th. I still feel the same way, take the asset and move on.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Honestly guys, what you were expecting from Cammy was a 2nd rounder and a prospect.

If you assume the prospect was a 3rd rounder, isn't that what we got from the trade deadline? I don't know what the big deal is, we just traded a goalie and an open roster spot for some youngsters to play last night.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Matty81

I have a hard time buying, that next year a totally different GM will have a reputation of not being a pushover because of Burke turning down a deal he though was undervalue. Also I think the two random theories I threw out there have just as much likelihood.

Also I think any actual price to the franchise in terms of assets is not worth a questionable reputational tradeoff for your trading ability.

Both sides are guessing at value, it could be a 2nd, it could be a 5th. I still feel the same way, take the asset and move on.

It's organizational. Burke will still have his hands all over trades next year, GM or not, so the point remains. It's not a random theory, it's just Burke referencing a known fact about being a human being in business. At WORST, based on your theory, teams looking to lowball someone won't even call the Flames. That's not really a loss is it?

Cammy is still an asset, his value is not zero. Just because we got nothing at the trade deadline does not mean we won't see a return on that asset in the future. We DID take the asset and move on, it's just clearly not the asset you wanted.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

After seeing the returns Vanek and Moulson got, I'm glad we didn't toss Cammy away for scraps like the Vanek deal. Snow will be fired over that deal for sure. I hope Cammy resigns in the range of 3-4 years at 4-4.5m.

Vanek returned Montreal's 2nd best prospect and a pick in the top 60. Moulson got the Sabers two top 60 picks. I would have been happy with the two picks and dancing in the streets for a top prospect at a position of weakness for us. Bottom line is both the Islanders and Sabers got two assets for a player they were going to get nothing for. Not a great return, but better than pinning your hopes on having a player sign a contract extension that they wouldn't sign prior to the deadline.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by New Era

Vanek returned Montreal's 2nd best prospect and a pick in the top 60. Moulson got the Sabers two top 60 picks. I would have been happy with the two picks and dancing in the streets for a top prospect at a position of weakness for us. Bottom line is both the Islanders and Sabers got two assets for a player they were going to get nothing for. Not a great return, but better than pinning your hopes on having a player sign a contract extension that they wouldn't sign prior to the deadline.

2nd best prospect?

I think HF has him ranked 6th on their depth charts (for what that's worth) and he has 9 pts this year in the Swedish league at the age of 20

Oh, and if the Habs don't make the playoffs - no 2nd round pick

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

2nd best prospect?

I think HF has him ranked 6th on their depth charts (for what that's worth) and he has 9 pts this year in the Swedish league at the age of 20

Oh, and if the Habs don't make the playoffs - no 2nd round pick

Collberg was their 2nd best ranked prospect (not in goal) yesterday morning before they moved him to the Islanders list. That pick is pretty safe. Hans would need to have a Canuck like fall down the stretch. Currently 8 points clear in the wild card. Either way, further ahead than hoping you can re-sign a guy to a contract he showed no interest to prior to the deadline.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by New Era

Vanek returned Montreal's 2nd best prospect and a pick in the top 60. Moulson got the Sabers two top 60 picks. I would have been happy with the two picks and dancing in the streets for a top prospect at a position of weakness for us. Bottom line is both the Islanders and Sabers got two assets for a player they were going to get nothing for. Not a great return, but better than pinning your hopes on having a player sign a contract extension that they wouldn't sign prior to the deadline.

The Flames pick 5 times in the first 3 rounds in this years draft. You're telling me that's bad asset management? Obviously Burke was looking for a player that would help the team immediately. Just because he's Montreal's 2nd best prospect doesn't mean much. It just shows how bad the offers were for the best available players at the deadline.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by New Era

Vanek returned Montreal's 2nd best prospect and a pick in the top 60. Moulson got the Sabers two top 60 picks. I would have been happy with the two picks and dancing in the streets for a top prospect at a position of weakness for us. Bottom line is both the Islanders and Sabers got two assets for a player they were going to get nothing for. Not a great return, but better than pinning your hopes on having a player sign a contract extension that they wouldn't sign prior to the deadline.

Not that its a giant piece or anything... but part of the Moulson return is due to the Sabres taking on the Torrey Mitchell contract for next year.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by New Era

Collberg was their 2nd best ranked prospect (not in goal) yesterday morning before they moved him to the Islanders list. That pick is pretty safe. Hans would need to have a Canuck like fall down the stretch. Currently 8 points clear in the wild card. Either way, further ahead than hoping you can re-sign a guy to a contract he showed no interest to prior to the deadline.

Who said he showed no interest?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

The Flames pick 5 times in the first 3 rounds in this years draft. You're telling me that's bad asset management? Obviously Burke was looking for a player that would help the team immediately. Just because he's Montreal's 2nd best prospect doesn't mean much. It just shows how bad the offers were for the best available players at the deadline.

And if we got even a disastrous Vanek type return we would have had 6 picks in the top 90 and another prospect two years closer to the NHL. Better situation, no?

And PeteMoss, isn't that exactly the type of deal that Burke was talking about making? We have the cap space so you take on a contract for other benefit? Other GMs made happen those deals Burke talked about. How is that possible when the Jedi master in Calgary couldn't get them done? Could it be they compromised and took the best deal that was there rather than being left with nothing? And when I say nothing, I mean a player that has refused your overtures to signing an extension.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by New Era

And if we got even a disastrous Vanek type return we would have had 6 picks in the top 90 and another prospect two years closer to the NHL. Better situation, no?

And PeteMoss, isn't that exactly the type of deal that Burke was talking about making? We have the cap space so you take on a contract for other benefit? Other GMs made happen those deals Burke talked about. How is that possible when the Jedi master in Calgary couldn't get them done? Could it be they compromised and took the best deal that was there rather than being left with nothing? And when I say nothing, I mean a player that has refused your overtures to signing an extension.

Apparently they were in on a 3 way deal where they were going to take another team's salary but it fell through on the other end.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by New Era

And if we got even a disastrous Vanek type return we would have had 6 picks in the top 90 and another prospect two years closer to the NHL. Better situation, no?

Do you really think Burke was offered a return similar to what Vanek netted. Vanek is a better player.

People are drawing their conclusions based on making up what they think the return was. We don't know what the offers or how many there were.

I suspect the best Burke could get was a 3rd. Worth it to trade him for that? Maybe. Maybe not.

[PeteMoss]

My take (which I'm sure everyone has been waiting for with baited breathe), is you can't just look at everything in a vacuum.

I assume Burke was holding out for a better return. He gambled and lost, which is what happens sometimes. He also gambled and won on the Berra trade (who I'm sure the Avs were hoping would come cheaper).

If Burke takes the offers that he has on the table 15 minutes prior to the deadline - you're likely looking at Cammy for a 3rd, Berra for a 3/4, Stempniak for a 4th. Instead he waited until the last minute and got the Avs to give up a 2nd and Pens to give up a 3rd and ending up with nothing for Cammy.

So you're comparing potential returns of two 3rd rounders + a 4th versus a 2nd and a 3rd. Could a 3rd/4th get you a 2nd rounder in draft - probably but it would vary by the location of the picks. Either way, its a similar return.

If you gamble for higher returns, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. But some need to understand the same strategy that got the 2nd for Berra is what caused the non-trade for Cammy.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Apparently they were in on a 3 way deal where they were going to take another team's salary but it fell through on the other end.

My read on that is that was actually perhaps separate from whatever they were trying to do with Cammy.

Doug Maclean (I know) made some confusing point that things got messed up somehow with Gaborik going to LA and somehow Ottawa was involved for Cammy - but that deal screwed it up.