[Trade] Glencross to Washington for a 2015 2nd and 2015 3rd round pick (WSH) (Archive)

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

That same discipline to get the required asking price is probably what netted a 2nd for Berra.

Huh? I don't think that had anything to do with it. How would it? Roy made a bad decision. How did anything that came before that influence that deal?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Huh? I don't think that had anything to do with it. How would it? Roy made a bad decision. How did anything that came before that influence that deal?

It's about the approach management has to getting the right return not about how one individual deal influences another.
Burke has said that one of the reasons Feaster wise fired was that he didn't get appropriate return on some deals.
Under Burke and Treliving the Flames seem to be more willing to hold the line on what they think is appropriate value instead of moving completely to accommodate the buyer.
So in the case of Berra, my understanding is when the Avs phoned, the Flames said they still liked Berra and if they were to move him the price would have to be a 2nd.

[Mr.Coffee]

IMO deals that don't bring in a defenseman don't really address our needs... picks can be flipped for Dmen I guess but bringing in a forward doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[budblazer]

ya thats not gonna happen lol

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

IMO deals that don't bring in a defenseman don't really address our needs... picks can be flipped for Dmen I guess but bringing in a forward doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I would much rather have a dman come back in trade, but I do think the flames need another legit top 6 forward. That said more than likely flames will be getting picks in return for traded players.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It's about the approach management has to getting the right return not about how one individual deal influences another.
Burke has said that one of the reasons Feaster wise fired was that he didn't get appropriate return on some deals.
Under Burke and Treliving the Flames seem to be more willing to hold the line on what they think is appropriate value instead of moving completely to accommodate the buyer.
So in the case of Berra, my understanding is when the Avs phoned, the Flames said they still liked Berra and if they were to move him the price would have to be a 2nd.

Still doesn't make sense to me. So, it's better to get nothing than take a pick for a guy? On principle? Because somehow this is going to send a message to other teams? To me, it's plain old bad asset management if you have an upcoming free agent and it's clear you're not going to make the playoffs and you get nothing for him. The only offers you're getting are 4th round picks? Ok, well it would appear that's all you're going to get, so take it. The alternative gets you nothing. Literally and with regards to your reputation around the league. It makes no difference and in fact is harmful to your organization to not maximize your returns.

The fact that you would take X pick for X guy now has zero impact on any future deals.

[JiriHrdina]

I disagree - your reputation is formed based on how you deal with other GMs during any negotiation.
I imagine some GMs are known to be easier to push over, and other are known to hold the line more.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Still doesn't make sense to me. So, it's better to get nothing than take a pick for a guy? On principle? Because somehow this is going to send a message to other teams? To me, it's plain old bad asset management if you have an upcoming free agent and it's clear you're not going to make the playoffs and you get nothing for him. The only offers you're getting are 4th round picks? Ok, well it would appear that's all you're going to get, so take it. The alternative gets you nothing. Literally and with regards to your reputation around the league. It makes no difference and in fact is harmful to your organization to not maximize your returns.

The fact that you would take X pick for X guy now has zero impact on any future deals.

It's kind of strange you don't get it when it's been explained over and over.

If you can't get value for an asset, giving it away for next to nothing (the odds of a 4th and beyond round pick playing in the NHL are slim) shows teams that all they need to do is wait you out and you'll cave.

That is really straight forward whether you agree with it or not. It was made crystal clear by Burke, and maybe you'd just toss assets out for 5th - 7th round picks and that's great. Sure glad you're not the GM.

This year, it's a whole different ballgame. If we don't get the value we're looking for for Glencross, we can keep him in hopes he'll help in a playoff push. Considering teams give away assets for playoff help, keeping Glencross instead of trading him helps with battling for the playoffs at no cost to us.

You can disagree, but to not understand seems obtuse.

[googol]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I disagree - your reputation is formed based on how you deal with other GMs during any negotiation.
I imagine some GMs are known to be easier to push over, and other are known to hold the line more.

Perhaps, but our GM now and someone different than last year.

[browna]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

It's about the approach management has to getting the right return not about how one individual deal influences another.
Burke has said that one of the reasons Feaster wise fired was that he didn't get appropriate return on some deals.
Under Burke and Treliving the Flames seem to be more willing to hold the line on what they think is appropriate value instead of moving completely to accommodate the buyer.
So in the case of Berra, my understanding is when the Avs phoned, the Flames said they still liked Berra and if they were to move him the price would have to be a 2nd.

Also, said this before, but Burke as a former player agent, knows what selling a guy "cheap" can do as far as repercussions. It annoys the player off with both teams (somewhat), gets agents mad at you and the team for trading away for a low return...a hit to the ego if nothing else.

Look what happened with Cammalleri. Burke gave him what the options and returns last trade deadline. Cammalleri was pissed off and it lit a fire under him for after the trade deadline, and earned him some more free agent $, and earned some points, at least with Cammy's agent and others, that he wouldn't push him out the door (no matter how much Burke wanted to retain Cammalleri or not).

Agents will know what Burke did, and, though it means nothing now for the Flames, for future buisness with Burke and the Flames in general, they will note what he did for their client, and the players will appreciate that as well.

It's the same sort of reputation building around the league/behind the scenes with agents that Sutter built here as GM (which helped aid in guys on the fence coming here, knowing they weren't being double talked or hoodwinked), and Feaster slowly but surely tore down. That sort of behind the scenes reputation repair is EXACTLY the reason the owners brought Brian Burke in.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by googol

Perhaps, but our GM now and someone different than last year.

it's not like that GM is gone though

[Mightyfire89]

Obviously there are different variables to any such situation. This year if Treliving decided that giving up Glencross for a 4th rounder wasn't in the team's best interest, I would understand and be ok with it, because the team has a good chance of making the playoffs and therefore an argument could be made that Glencross could be a valuable piece to make the playoffs and potentially make an impact in the post season. Last year however, refusing a 3rd round pick for Cammy because you thought he should be worth a 1st or 2nd and therefore losing him for no return when it was clear there was no chance of making the playoffs was very poor management. IMO.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Obviously there are different variables to any such situation. This year if Treliving decided that giving up Glencross for a 4th rounder wasn't in the team's best interest, I would understand and be ok with it, because the team has a good chance of making the playoffs and therefore an argument could be made that Glencross could be a valuable piece to make the playoffs and potentially make an impact in the post season. Last year however, refusing a 3rd round pick for Cammy because you thought he should be worth a 1st or 2nd and therefore losing him for no return when it was clear there was no chance of making the playoffs was very poor management. IMO.

I could be wrong but after lasts year trade deadline weren't the flames still hoping Cammi would change his mind and re-sign? That does not seem like the case this year with Glencross unless he drops his price considerably.

[sureLoss]

I think one of things that is hard for some people to understand is that trading a pending UFA in the NHL is not like selling a couch on Craigslist.

I vaguely remember someone earlier this year comparing what Burke did with Cammy to himself trying to sell a couch for $800 and then burning the couch when the best offer was $100. That particular analogy is pretty bad.

To adapt the couch selling theme better; a NHL GM's job pretty much involves trying to sell a couch to the same 29 people year after year after year. Unlike when you or I sell a couch in a private transaction, those 29 people know exactly how much a GM sold a couch to the other guys in previous years.

If the GM will dramatically lower his asking price over fear of losing an asset for nothing just before the deadline, those 29 other people will notice and they will use this knowledge next year.

[AC]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I think one of things that is hard for some people to understand is that trading a pending UFA in the NHL is not like selling a couch on Craigslist.

The other constant complaint I hear is that a GM didn't get enough for a player, or specifically that he could have gotten more some how.

As we approach the deadline, the rest of the league knows Glencross is available. As a result, Treliving will be talking with every one of them that is interested. He is going to make the best trade possible.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

I think one of things that is hard for some people to understand is that trading a pending UFA in the NHL is not like selling a couch on Craigslist.

I vaguely remember someone earlier this year comparing what Burke did with Cammy to himself trying to sell a couch for $800 and then burning the couch when the best offer was $100. That particular analogy is pretty bad.

To adapt the couch selling theme better; a NHL GM's job pretty much involves trying to sell a couch to the same 29 people year after year after year. Unlike when you or I sell a couch in a private transaction, those 29 people know exactly how much a GM sold a couch to the other guys in previous years.

If the GM will dramatically lower his asking price over fear of losing an asset for nothing just before the deadline, those 29 other people will notice and they will use this knowledge next year.

How would another GM use that information? If you get an offer the following year on a player that you deem unacceptable, you say no. And again, context is everything. If it looks like your team is going to make the playoffs, you can be picky. Otherwise, you should maximize your assets and take what you can get.

[killer_carlson]

Opposing GMs know that if they wait, you drop your price exponentially. Some will take that risk when they speculate there are few other bidders for a specific player.

It's akin to waiting for boxing day instead of buying Christmas Eve. You know the price will be less, so take your chance, line up early on the 26th, and save a pile of dough.

Holding the line is a better strategy in my opinion.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

How would another GM use that information? If you get an offer the following year on a player that you deem unacceptable, you say no. And again, context is everything. If it looks like your team is going to make the playoffs, you can be picky. Otherwise, you should maximize your assets and take what you can get.

Then every time the Calgary Flames don't make the playoffs expect GMs only to lowball the Flames on pending UFAs because they know they would rather have a 7th round pick than loose a 2nd line forward or a top 4 defenceman to free agency.


You have to draw the line in the sand at some point.

[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.

[Mightyfire89]

Edit^^^Responding to Sureloss.

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