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

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Fantastic. Now try to convince another team that Cammy is going to make a return to 60+ points a season, something he hasn't done in 4 years.

Calgary is not going to get much for him, salary buy or not. I don't see a 1st rounder for him at all, or anything equitable. I see us taking a 2nd at most, and a salary dump that no one else wanted. Something to the extent of Rotislav Olesz and a late 2nd, as an example.

What are you talking about? This season Cammi put up 32 points in 44 games. That is already a "60 point season" and that was done while trying to convert from wing to center and playing on a team that blew it up at the deadline.

The two seasons in Montreal he missed almost 20 games per season and was still putting up ~50 points (which pro-rates to above a 60 point season pace). That also doesn't take into account his playoff performance where he was above a PPG for the Canadiens.

Under the CP microscope Cammalleri's career might be over but in the real world he is still a top 6 forward.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by Wolven

What are you talking about? This season Cammi put up 32 points in 44 games. That is already a "60 point season" and that was done while trying to convert from wing to center and playing on a team that blew it up at the deadline.

The two seasons in Montreal he missed almost 20 games per season and was still putting up ~50 points (which pro-rates to above a 60 point season pace). That also doesn't take into account his playoff performance where he was above a PPG for the Canadiens.

Under the CP microscope Cammalleri's career might be over but in the real world he is still a top 6 forward.

CP has decided that he is a washed up vet...got it?

CP will also be PO'd in whatever return Feaster gets for him...Pick up what I'm laying down?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by BigFlameDog

CP has decided that he is a washed up vet...got it?

CP will also be PO'd in whatever return Feaster gets for him...Pick up what I'm laying down?

Yes, Sir!

Sorry, Sir!

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Wolven

It would depend on the returns for eating half the salary so that another team can have a first line player for cheap. Its pretty safe to say that the direct value of $$ for picks / prospects hasn't been determined yet.

If Cammalleri by himself is worth a 1st+ right now then what is Cammalleri with the Flames taking on half of his salary for the season? Two 1sts?

You would have to think for a team like the Senators they would be willing to pay a significant amount to get Cammalleri's production all year for half price. To them that extra production (and extra flexibility to acquire another significant asset or two) could be the difference between going to the playoffs as an underdog again versus home ice advantage.

Cammi is not worth a 1st+ right now. Even if they ate half his salary i am not sure he would get 1st +, unless the "+" was a crap prospect.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

Cammi is not worth a 1st+ right now. Even if they ate half his salary i am not sure he would get 1st +, unless the "+" was a crap prospect.

I don't think it matters what the "+" represent. My point was mainly that I think Cammi is worth more than just a 1st. Especially if that is going to translate to a late 1st.

The main point was that trading Cammalleri at half $$ should have significant value as it means the Flames are literally paying money for a player to play on another team. It gives the other team a top line winger and basically allows the other team to exceed the salary cap by $3M.

I would think that a deal like that would be worth an additional 1st or solid prospect.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Flames ownership has shown a willingness to spend the cap, but have been so far, totally unwilling to pay a player money to play somewhere else, whether that's abbotsford, europe or for another team.

Can't see Calgary keeping any salary for a player not in the organization.

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.

[Azhouse]

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

Anders Eriksson got a one way deal in the minors I believe

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I don't think it matters what the "+" represent. My point was mainly that I think Cammi is worth more than just a 1st. Especially if that is going to translate to a late 1st.

The main point was that trading Cammalleri at half $$ should have significant value as it means the Flames are literally paying money for a player to play on another team. It gives the other team a top line winger and basically allows the other team to exceed the salary cap by $3M.

I would think that a deal like that would be worth an additional 1st or solid prospect.

Why do you think he's worth more at 31 than he was worth at 25 and just entering his prime - when he brought a mid-first rounder and a late second? His career high in points was six years ago. It's nothing against Cammalleri to say he is worth less in a trade at 31 than at 25. That's simply reality for most players.

[Iggy Snipe]

Camy is not worth a first. Thats absolutely crazy. He is a 2nd round pick. Over paid, under performing, small player, who plays very soft.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Honestly, if that is all that's being offered I'd try to convince Mike to be a leader on a young team that isn't going to win much, play his heart out and promise him you'll flip him to a better team towards the 2014 trade deadline... where you're sure to get more then that for him.

He's not a leader. He doesnt have the right attitude for it and it ends up bringing a negative vibe in to the room. You have to be cut out to lead a young team during a rebuild and Mike doesnt have it. There's a reason Dean Lombardi traded him when the Kings started rebuilding. He wasn't setting the right example for all the young players.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Ice

He's not a leader. He doesnt have the right attitude for it and it ends up bringing a negative vibe in to the room. You have to be cut out to lead a young team during a rebuild and Mike doesnt have it. There's a reason Dean Lombardi traded him when the Kings started rebuilding. He wasn't setting the right example for all the young players.

You should start your sentence with "in my opinion", because everything you said is just your speculation.

Cammy works his ass off in the off season, in the weight room and in the video room. He is also very vocal and POSITIVE in the dressing room. Seems like the right attitude to me.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Iggy Snipe

Camy is not worth a first. Thats absolutely crazy. He is a 2nd round pick. Over paid, under performing, small player, who plays very soft.

Some CPers are hungover on 1st rounders after Pittsburgh & St. Louis trades. Cammalleri should be seen as salary dump. 2nd rounder is definitely an adequate return.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Ice

He's not a leader. He doesnt have the right attitude for it and it ends up bringing a negative vibe in to the room. You have to be cut out to lead a young team during a rebuild and Mike doesnt have it. There's a reason Dean Lombardi traded him when the Kings started rebuilding. He wasn't setting the right example for all the young players.

The reason Lombardi traded Cammi to the flames was that Cammi said he would not re-sign for anything less than $5 million, Lombardi offered $4 million. After the year in Calgary he pretty much said the same thing and went to Montreal.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

The reason Lombardi traded Cammi to the flames was that Cammi said he would not re-sign for anything less than $5 million, Lombardi offered $4 million. After the year in Calgary he pretty much said the same thing and went to Montreal.

I remember reading that Cammi wanted $6M, but that was based on what he requested in arbitration, which apparently was an ugly process. All along, we heard that Cammi was going to test UFA no matter what.

[FAN]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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.

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

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

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.

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.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

You should start your sentence with "in my opinion", because everything you said is just your speculation.

Cammy works his ass off in the off season, in the weight room and in the video room. He is also very vocal and POSITIVE in the dressing room. Seems like the right attitude to me.

My "opinion" comes from direct statements from players. I have no reason to doubt what I've been told and what his impact was in the room based on the incidents I've been told of.

I have never questioned his work ethic or his desire to win and neither have his teammates. 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.

I was just adding a perspective to the discussion. I understand people don't believe what they read on message boards. I have no problem if you choose not to believe what I post.

[Diemenz]

^ nice back pedal.

Kyuss was correct about money. That is the only reason Cammy was traded. The rest is all your opinion and should be treated as such.

And yes people find it hard to believe when people come in and say they know for a fact a player is a certain way because all their NHL buddies say so.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

^ nice back pedal.

Kyuss was correct about money. That is the only reason Cammy was traded. The rest is all your opinion and should be treated as such.

And yes people find it hard to believe when people come in and say they know for a fact a player is a certain way because all their NHL buddies say so.

Sounds like the only person who has a substantiated opinion is Ice.

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.

Get over it.

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by timbit

Sounds like the only person who has a substantiated opinion is Fire.

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 Fire differently.

Get over it.

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.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

You should start your sentence with "in my opinion", because everything you said is just your speculation.

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.