The Cammalleri non-trade

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Just because it's the best deal at that time, doesn't mean it's a deal you should take. That's true in many facets of life. If you were a butcher would you sell an entire strip loin at the close of business on Friday for $2 lottery ticket, as it was the best offer you had at that time? Would you take a job working manual labour in high risk conditions for $6 an hour because you didn't have a better offer at that second? Not receiving a 3rd round pick doesn't bother me. If it was a first round pick, that's significant. You also don't want players to know they'll be discarded for nothing, as that lowers the desirability of your franchise as a destination for free agents.

fixed

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Just because it's the best deal at that time, doesn't mean it's a deal you should take.

There wasn't a later deal to be had. If you can wait and get a better deal then by all means do it but Burke couldn't do it.

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Once again, if people know they can lowball you all the time, and you'll end up taking anything, that's what they are going to do.

Where does this "lowball" idea come from? Prices were low that deadline... it's more reasonable to think that Burke wasn't getting lowballed and that he was instead getting offered current market rate and Burke misread the market. Are you saying the Flames should never make a market rate deal? Burke played chicken with the field and Burke lost.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If the Flames have a reputation for taking whatever they can get at the deadline, do you think that we'll ever get fair market value on a trade, or 'win' many trades?

Counter-point: If the Flames have a reputation for demanding exobanent returns do you think we'll be first on many GM's call list? How many deals might that reputation cost?

And really... Brian Burke has been an executive in the League for 20ish Years. If after 20 years he is still receiving "lowball" offers refusing to trade Cammy isn't going to do anything to his or the organization he runs reputation. If this reputation argument had any real merit Burke wouldn't have received any lowball offers to begin with.

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If our next trades are stronger because of this, I'll take the temporary hit, for long term strength in negotiation.

Our next trade was a 3rd for Bollig... do you legitimately think that the Flames would have had to fork out more for Bollig had Burke traded Cammy?

[Tinordi]

No problem not trading

However it should make people pipe down with the constant justifications of trading second rounders for players by saying we could always trade that player for another second down the road.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by loosecannon3

How upset are you at management that we never traded Mike Cammalleri? He was by far our best tradeable player at the deadline. It didn't help that he got hot AFTER the deadline!

Thanks for starting this thread. It was a really illuminating discussion.

[neo45]

Just some things to think about...

1. If Burke "caved" and traded Cammy for a third, is that really enough to ruin his reputation among other Gms that he built for over 20 years? Could it even have an effect?

2. That was the last trade Burke would have done for us, so how much would him caving ruin Treliving trying to make trades going forward?

I think this was done to PROVE that things are different now that Feaster isn't here. We have a GM that can actually skate and other GMs should take us seriously. Burke was willing to spend a couple mil and lose a 3rd for this to happen

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Parallex

There wasn't a later deal to be had. If you can wait and get a better deal then by all means do it but Burke couldn't do it.



Where does this "lowball" idea come from? Prices were low that deadline... it's more reasonable to think that Burke wasn't getting lowballed and that he was instead getting offered current market rate and Burke misread the market. Are you saying the Flames should never make a market rate deal? Burke played chicken with the field and Burke lost.

Let's look at it this way. You run a company and have a great worker who has been with you a long time, has a good report with all of your other employees, and who is a veteran of the business, but he has informed you he is leaving in 3 months. By the grace of a new crazy labor law, you are able to trade your expiring employee to a competitor for another crack at the pool of 1000s of student resumes, after all those with even a sniff at any guarantee of being a good employee are gone. let's also assume that your company is on the downswing and needs younger, cheaper, but also capable replacement workers.

Do you A) Keep your expiring worker and let him train his replacement(s) and those around him for the 3 months before he goes or B) Take the random shot in the dark at the resume pile? Does the knowledge he passes onto new employees outweigh the fact that you "lose him for nothing"?

The benefits of either scenario are debateable, but you couldn't say the manager is in error by keeping his man.

This scenario also requires that we are dealing with human beings with undefinable personality differences and defects, and not with stocks or robots that are replaceable purely by their statistics and system capacities.

[AcGold]

As long as we don't make any moves that cripple us we'll be fine. The Camalleri situation is a non-issue, the Bouwmeester, Iginla, Regehr and Phaneuf trades all hurt us badly. As soon as those stopped happening we started moving in the right direction. Trading Giordano for a bunch of plugs would piss me off, a late pick which we would have ideally gotten for Camalleri is not the difference between a cup or not.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by AcGold

As long as we don't make any moves that cripple us we'll be fine. The Camalleri situation is a non-issue, the Bouwmeester, Iginla, Regehr and Phaneuf trades all hurt us badly. As soon as those stopped happening we started moving in the right direction. Trading Giordano for a bunch of plugs would piss me off, a late pick which we would have ideally gotten for Camalleri is not the difference between a cup or not.

The returns for Iginla and Bouwmeester could have been greater, but how did those trades "hurt us badly"? Such hyperbole here these days.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Counter-point: If the Flames have a reputation for demanding exobanent returns do you think we'll be first on many GM's call list? How many deals might that reputation cost?

When Vanek was traded, the consensus was Garth Snow got hosed. Vanek for a Collerg & a conditional 2nd was incredibly undervalued.

Burke wasn't saying Cammalleri for Crosby, Malkin and 2 firsts. He was saying Cammalleri for a prospect with 2 games played in North America and a low probability of success plus a conditional 2nd wasn't value.

Your counter point is only relevant if there are facts to infer. If other teams were getting fair value but Calgary was holding out saying there isn't value of there, then you would be correct.

And really... Brian Burke has been an executive in the League for 20ish Years. If after 20 years he is still receiving "lowball" offers refusing to trade Cammy isn't going to do anything to his or the organization he runs reputation. If this reputation argument had any real merit Burke wouldn't have received any lowball offers to begin with.

Our next trade was a 3rd for Bollig... do you legitimately think that the Flames would have had to fork out more for Bollig had Burke traded Cammy?

I think neo45 put it best:

Originally Posted by neo45

I think this was done to PROVE that things are different now that Feaster isn't here. We have a GM that can actually skate and other GMs should take us seriously. Burke was willing to spend a couple mil and lose a 3rd for this to happen

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Our next trade was a 3rd for Bollig... do you legitimately think that the Flames would have had to fork out more for Bollig had Burke traded Cammy?

Getting a decent 4th liner like Bollig for a late 3rd round pick in a weak draft is a decent trade. Not sure why people are so upset about it.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by AcGold

As long as we don't make any moves that cripple us we'll be fine. The Camalleri situation is a non-issue, the Bouwmeester, Iginla, Regehr and Phaneuf trades all hurt us badly. As soon as those stopped happening we started moving in the right direction. Trading Giordano for a bunch of plugs would piss me off, a late pick which we would have ideally gotten for Camalleri is not the difference between a cup or not.

agreed here

Despite who was at the helm, I think the reputation of the Flames was that we we would be willing to give up top line players for marginal players/prospects (Iginla, Bouw, Phaneuf, Regehr) and that is the imagine that Brian Burke was hoping to change. Rightly or wrongly. I know for me, I was cringing to find out what we got for Bouwmeester after seeing how the Iginla, Regehr and Phaneuf trades went.... lo and behold, here we were holding the bag on 2 mediocre picks and a conditional late 1st rounder.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Does the knowledge he passes onto new employees outweigh the fact that you "lose him for nothing"?

Great yet another metaphor.

Since your fond of them I'll relate another equally valid metaphor, cribed from yours...

You run a company and have a good worker who has been with you off and on for a long time, you think he has good report with your other employees, and he is a veteran of the business, he has informed you he is leaving in 3 months. Your company is in a state that this employee will not be able to increase your revenue in those three months. By the grace of a new crazy labor law, you are able to trade your expiring employee to a competitor for another crack at the pool of student resumes. Fortunately you still have several good workers who have also been with you a long time none of whom are planning to leave anytime soon.

Do you...

A) Keep your expiring worker and let him help train his replacement(s) for the short time before he goes even though there are several others who can already do this training (including several whose actual primary job is to train new talent which is not your departing employee's job) regardless of whether that employee is here or not and the amount of time he'll actually be able to spend imparting knowledge is extremely limited as he is using his allotment of vacation time and the three months is actually only going to be about a month and a half of actual work and most of the new employee's will only be there a week or two.

B) Get extra shots at the resume pile?

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

When Vanek was traded, the consensus was Garth Snow got hosed. Vanek for a Collerg & a conditional 2nd was incredibly undervalued.

So... you think Garth Snow would be thought of more highly if he had not traded Vanek and then Vanek proceeded to sign with the Wild? Really? Snow would have been racked harder over the coals if he'd done that IMO.

Originally Posted by codynw

Getting a decent 4th liner like Bollig for a late 3rd round pick in a weak draft is a decent trade. Not sure why people are so upset about it.

So you think Treliving would have ended up paying more for Bollig if Burke had traded Cammy for the best deal offered at the deadline?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

In fairness, thinking that the value Cammalleri could have brought after the trade deadline was worth at the very least a 3rd round pick in a shallow draft is a justified opinion (one that I don't share, but the opinion is justified).

[Coach]

Yup, those are the two different sides of the argument, framed in an office metaphor with each of our biases emphasized.

Brian Burke chose A.

There is no way to determine whether it was right or wrong. But what we do know is that Burke has been living and breathing and excelling working within the sport for decades and while he is not without error, I'll take his word on things like the intangible value of a player on his team and the conditions of the trade market and how they are manipulated. You don't have to and that's fine.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

In fairness, thinking that the value Cammalleri [b]could have[/] brought after the trade deadline was worth at the very least a 3rd round pick in a shallow draft is a justified opinion (one that I don't share, but the opinion is justified).

Not to mention we did actually get a 2nd round pick and a 3rd round pick for 2 guys I didn't think we'd get anything for (Berra and Stempniak).

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You don't have to and that's fine.

Agreed... except the part about Burke excelling. His career is a mixed bag and if he consistently excelled he wouldn't be on his 5th organization. I'm not gonna call him the worst executive in the league but I wouldn't call him anything greater then average either.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Parallex

So... you think Garth Snow would be thought of more highly if he had not traded Vanek and then Vanek proceeded to sign with the Wild? Really? Snow would have been racked harder over the coals if he'd done that IMO.

I disagree. You trade for value or nothing at all, but that's my opinion. We fundamentally disagree.

So you think Treliving would have ended up paying more for Bollig if Burke had traded Cammy for the best deal offered at the deadline?

I don't know. But I don't think that Treliving is going to get any offers like Agostino, Hanowski and a 1st for Iginla. I think he'll get offered prospects higher on teams' depth charts.

It is possible that Chicago could have said Bollig for a high 2nd or nothing at all. Or wanted a player to go with the 3rd because they'd think the Flames are just gonna cave anyway.

The Flames have a history of getting hosed in trades. I want that to stop. I'm willing to sacrifice a 3rd or 4th round pick to do that. If you're not that's valid, but it doesn't make me wrong.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Agreed... except the part about Burke excelling. His career is a mixed bag and if he consistently excelled he wouldn't be on his 5th organization. I'm not gonna call him the worst executive in the league but I wouldn't call him anything greater then average either.

You just want something Burke related to argue about don't you?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

To those that think Burke "lost" by not making the trade: I still think the best analogy is the airline ticket sale. Airlines do not sell seats for $10 just prior to take off, even if faced with a near-empty plane. Even though, on the face of it, $10 is better than $0, it will not happen. There is a very real cost for future sales.

For Cammi, would it really make sense for the Flames to trade Cammi + 7th rounder in return for a 6th rounder? There must be some point where the value isn't there, even for a UFA at the deadline.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by the2bears

The returns for Iginla and Bouwmeester could have been greater, but how did those trades "hurt us badly"? Such hyperbole here these days.

we finished in 27th. Not hyperbole to go from contenders to 27th as the result of a series of botched trades with all of our biggest assets of which returned only notably Matt Stajan. That's pretty bad.