The Cammalleri non-trade - Page 9 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

codynw · 07-14-2014, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallex

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?

Who knows? I'm sure it didn't hurt. Maybe Chicago was asking for the earlier 3rd rounder, but settled for the later one?

Hackey · 07-14-2014, 03:51 PM

Quote:

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.

BINGO! We've discovered the root to why you have so valiantly fought such a minor insignificant transaction.

The Swedish Flame · 07-14-2014, 03:53 PM

We're spending almost ten pages evaluating trades that didn't happen? Boy is it offseason alright.

codynw · 07-14-2014, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Swedish Flame

We're spending almost ten pages evaluating trades that didn't happen? Boy is it offseason alright.

And it's only July 14th! The stupidity has only just begun!

Parallex · 07-14-2014, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackey

BINGO! We've discovered the root to why you have so valiantly fought such a minor insignificant transaction.

I can guarentee you that if Sutter or Feaster had done the exact same non-transaction and used the exact same excuses I would feel the exact same way.

Phanuthier · 07-14-2014, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallex

I can guarentee you that if Sutter or Feaster had done the exact same non-transaction and used the exact same excuses I would feel the exact same way.

Well where is your pages of argument of outrage over the loss of Tom Kostopolous a year(s?) ago for nothing?

(actually Olli Jokinen would be a better example)

Resolute 14 · 07-14-2014, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcGold

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.

It's cute that you think those trades are why we stopped contending for the playoffs.

But, as noted, why use rational discourse when hyperbole is easier?

Parallex · 07-14-2014, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Well where is your pages of argument of outrage over the loss of Tom Kostopolous a year(s?) ago for nothing?

(actually Olli Jokinen would be a better example)

Nice try.

Team was in a different place (and I'm not sure Tom Kostopolous get asked about to be frank). They hadn't acknowledged the need to rebuild yet and a team that's legitimately trying to make the post-season keeps those players to help them do that. If you want to say the team should have started to rebuild earlier you'll get no argument from me.

Phanuthier · 07-14-2014, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallex

Nice try.

Team was in a different place (and I'm not sure Tom Kostopolous get asked about to be frank). They hadn't acknowledged the need to rebuild yet and a team that's legitimately trying to make the post-season keeps those players to help them do that. If you want to say the team should have started to rebuild earlier you'll get no argument from me.

Nice dodge

Resolute 14 · 07-14-2014, 04:17 PM

Yeah, sorry Parallex, but you're just moving the goalposts there.

Parallex · 07-14-2014, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yeah, sorry Parallex, but you're just moving the goalposts there.

Considering I said this earlier...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallex

On a rebuilding team you either ink an extention before the deadline or you exchange that asset in the best deal to be had.

... I don't see how that's moving the goalposts at all.

Maritime Q-Scout · 07-14-2014, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallex

... I don't see how that's moving the goalposts at all.

I think good general managers are always looking for value and to make the team better.

A good general manager knows when it's time to rebuild and when it's time to push for the playoff drive.

If the GM says "we're going for it" when they should be rebuilding, I'd hold that GM to the rebuilding standard. Which I think the "moving the goalposts" comment is getting at.

Again, it's a difference in philosophy. One isn't necessarily right or wrong, but simply different.

FAN · 07-14-2014, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Well where is your pages of argument of outrage over the loss of Tom Kostopolous a year(s?) ago for nothing?

(actually Olli Jokinen would be a better example)

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=115014

Enjoy.

FlameZilla · 07-14-2014, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikephoen

At the end of the year Fan session I was at a fan suggested the Flames should have taken anything they could get, even a 5th. Burke obviously scoffed at this suggestion, but Treliving added an interesting point.

Even though he wasn't here at the time, Treliving thought Burke did the right thing. He said that that teams do profiling of the other GMs in the league. He said his goes back six or seven years for each other manager in the league and it gives them an idea of who will fold at the end of a negotiation. He said it's very important not to get a reputation as someone who 'takes what they can get'.

Burke also blamed the messed up deadline on Gillis. He said that he was stringing so many teams along, telling them they were close on Kesler, that the every other deal was on the back burner. It was only at the very last minute that teams tried to move on to plan B, and at that point the Cammy was still behind Vanek, Gaborik and Moulson for most teams and time ran out.

Insightful post in a pointless thread.

Phanuthier · 07-14-2014, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAN

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=115014

Enjoy.

this was your only post in that thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...41#post3571541

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAN

I remember Feaster mentioning in his presser that there were opportunities to pick up a 2nd round pick and opportunities to pick up a 3rd round pick but that meant taking players out of the lineup that was worth more for the team both now and going forward.

I said this before in another thread, I believe that Feaster doesn't really value draft picks as much as most GMs in the league. Whenever he has an asset he can trade a high pick for, he almost always the deal that includes a player coming back in return.

AcGold · 07-14-2014, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's cute that you think those trades are why we stopped contending for the playoffs.

But, as noted, why use rational discourse when hyperbole is easier?

If you can't agree that losing all of our biggest assets and getting little to no return... on all of them is a bad thing, then I really do not know what to tell you. There is no need to get excited about it like you are, rational discourse? Which person here is being condescending and irrational? Think about it.

the2bears · 07-14-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcGold

If you can't agree that losing all of our biggest assets and getting little to no return... on all of them is a bad thing, then I really do not know what to tell you. There is no need to get excited about it like you are, rational discourse? Which person here is being condescending and irrational? Think about it.

I asked you why you think the Iginla and Bowmeester trades hurt the Flames. Some vague notion about the value of the return isn't a good enough answer. How did the 2 extra first round picks hurt us? Let alone the pieces that came with those picks. Getting those picks definitely help us in the rebuild.

Your argument seems to be that anything less than optimal value in a trade hurts us. How many trades actually achieve optimal value? Seems very unrealistic a criteria, and yes, a little irrational.

FireGilbert · 07-14-2014, 05:38 PM

Considering the potential return for Cammalleri was low I can understand the arguments for Burke not making a trade and trying to re-sign him. I still think Burke should have made a Cammy trade the top priority though and traded him for the best offer on deadline day. A rebuilding team needs to take what it can get in assets instead of losing a player for nothing.

This is also the second time Calgary lost Cammy for nothing. The history of bad asset management is more frustrating than this particular instance of not getting a draft pick for Cammalleri.

MarkGio · 07-14-2014, 05:56 PM

I blame Burke for not forecasting the market better and for not trading Cammy earlier in the season, but I don't blame Burke for not taking a crappy deal at the deadline. All these guys do is make trades with the same 30 guys for consecutive years.

All salesman know who to prey on when they see an easy meal.

Phanuthier · 07-14-2014, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I blame Burke for not forecasting the market better and for not trading Cammy earlier in the season, but I don't blame Burke for not taking a crappy deal at the deadline. All these guys do is make trades with the same 30 guys for consecutive years.

All salesman know who to prey on when they see an easy meal.

I know they (Feaster) tried, nobody was biting. There are articles/quotes out there on this.