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

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Rerun

A player is worth whatever someone is willing to pay... Not what you THINK they should pay. If you can't get what you feel you deserve then your price is too high. Lower your price and make the sale. However those buyers that are really lowballing you are also taking the chance that someone will swoop in with a better offer and you lose a player that you really wanted/needed on your team. Kind of like making an offer on a new house.

That's a dumb philosophy of your trading with the same few people over and over

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Kind of like making an offer on a new house.

And if you knew the seller of that house has a history of taking 50% of asking price on houses he sold in the past, would your initial offer be a penny more than 50%?

[Vulcan]

Sacrificing a third pick by not trading Cammallari can also be looked at as righting the boat after our last GM got a reputation for being a patsy.

[googol]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

And if you knew the seller of that house has a history of taking 50% of asking price on houses he sold in the past, would your initial offer be a penny more than 50%?

You take the best available offer. People will bid if it is a house they want.

Also it depends on the market. If it's a down year, the offer will be lower. Doesn't mean it won't be better when the market improves.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I guess we'll see what happens this season, but if they let Cammy go for nothing last year and then Glencross go for nothing this year, I'm not sure they're really letting other teams know much of anything besides that they're willing to lose assets go for nothing. Hopefully that will pay off down the road? In the meantime the Flames themselves are getting screwed over.

But we'll see. I'm hopeful what Burke did last year with Cammy will pay off for Treliving this season. If not, that's two pretty big assets lost for no reason.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

And if you knew the seller of that house has a history of taking 50% of asking price on houses he sold in the past, would your initial offer be a penny more than 50%?

Not if I knew there were going to be multiple offers on the house and i didn't know how much the other offers were for... And I really wanted the house.

[Ryan Coke]

Someone else said it on here in the last few days, but it appeared Burke had things not work out trying to deal Cammy, and then did a wonderful job of rationalizing it to himself, the media and fans. He waited for the better deal, then due to Snow's mess holding things up couldn't finalize anything.

While I understand how things didn't work out, I don't think it had anything to do with holding the line and showing he won't be pushed around and will demand greater returns in future dealings. It s a nice story though, and one which apparently a surprising number of people on here buy into.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Sure, but in that situation, it made no sense to be stubborn and say no, given that the team wasn't making the playoffs anyway. They should have taken something that they were offered instead of losing him for free. This year, for example, it's different and I wouldn't give Glencross away for nothing because he could help the team down the stretch and hopefully, into the playoffs. So in this situation you can be more picky.

This would be a reasonable strategy if the NHL was a true marketplace. But it's not. It's a small club of GMs that all know each other well and have long memories.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Jimmy's logic doesn't even make sense.

Maximize assets by taking whatever you can if you are not making the playoffs. But wait! If the offer is unacceptable don't take anything!

Not really what I'm saying. I'll try to be more clear as to where I'm coming from.

Regarding last season, I think they should have traded Camalleri for whatever they could get because we all knew the team wasn't making the playoffs and I don't know about you, but I suspect the team's braintrust had a pretty good idea by the deadline that he wasn't going to re-sign with the Flames.

This year is a different story. If you don't get an offer you think is good enough for Glencross, you keep him as he might just help the team down the stretch and into the playoffs.

I don't believe if the Flames had taken whatever they could get for Cammy last season that it would impact at all on what they could get this deadline for Glencross. Or any other deal in the future, for that matter.

As for teams lowballing you when you're not making the playoffs because you've let a player go for cheap before in that scenario, there's nothing saying you can't refuse and if the player is worth something, then some legit offers will still be there. And really, if you're losing him anyway, why not get something for him.

There's a lot of other factors involved, I know. I just think if a team continually sticks to it's guns and lets pending free agents walk for nothing, at the end of a given period of time, the team is worse off because they didn't get anything when they could have. A pick, any pick can turn into something. We know that, looking at guys in our history like Fleury, Suter, Brodie and Gaudreau, just to name a few.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Someone else said it on here in the last few days, but it appeared Burke had things not work out trying to deal Cammy , and then did a wonderful job of rationalizing it to himself, the media and fans. He waited for the better deal, then due to Snow's mess holding things up couldn't finalize anything.

While I understand how things didn't work out, I don't think it had anything to do with holding the line and showing he won't be pushed around and will demand greater returns in future dealings. It s a nice story though, and one which apparently a surprising number of people on here buy into.

Proof for the bolded? As far as I can remember, there were a number of wingers that the hockey talk shows were waiting on news of being dealt. Lots of action near the end involving these guys once it was evident that Kesler wasn't going to move and for relatively cheap prices between 3rd+. Vanek only got a minor league swap and a condition 2nd.

Checking back, NHL.com reported the Hemsky trade 15mins before the trade deadline at 3pm EST. He was the last of 3 main wingers being moved as they were all traded within a short span of each other.

And it was Gillies' fault, not Snow.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Not really what I'm saying. I'll try to be more clear as to where I'm coming from.

Regarding last season, I think they should have traded Camalleri for whatever they could get because we all knew the team wasn't making the playoffs and I don't know about you, but I suspect the team's braintrust had a pretty good idea by the deadline that he wasn't going to re-sign with the Flames.

This year is a different story. If you don't get an offer you think is good enough for Glencross, you keep him as he might just help the team down the stretch and into the playoffs.

I don't believe if the Flames had taken whatever they could get for Cammy last season that it would impact at all on what they could get this deadline for Glencross. Or any other deal in the future, for that matter.

As for teams lowballing you when you're not making the playoffs because you've let a player go for cheap before in that scenario, there's nothing saying you can't refuse and if the player is worth something, then some legit offers will still be there. And really, if you're losing him anyway, why not get something for him.

There's a lot of other factors involved, I know. I just think if a team continually sticks to it's guns and lets pending free agents walk for nothing, at the end of a given period of time, the team is worse off because they didn't get anything when they could have. A pick, any pick can turn into something. We know that, looking at guys in our history like Fleury, Suter, Brodie and Gaudreau, just to name a few.

You still haven't explained what you would do if you had nothing but low ball offers, which according to Burke was all he had.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

You still haven't explained what you would do if you had nothing but low ball offers, which according to Burke was all he had.

I'd love to here what these low ball offers were. A 2nd? A 3rd? Worse? Or is it just bull #### from Burke because he ended up with nothing at the end of the day.

[Mightyfire89]

Well I heard rumours that he was offered a 3rd rounder. If that's true, I would have taken it. Hell I would have taken a 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th rounder because it's better than nothing...in that particular scenario.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

You still haven't explained what you would do if you had nothing but low ball offers, which according to Burke was all he had.

In his case it would simply be

As for teams lowballing you when you're not making the playoffs because you've let a player go for cheap before in that scenario, there's nothing saying you can't refuse and if the player is worth something, then some legit offers will still be there. And really, if you're losing him anyway, why not get something for him.

Really boils down to the fact that Jimmy's basis is

I don't believe if the Flames had taken whatever...that it would impact at all on what they could get...[in] any other deal in the future, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Rerun

I'd love to here what these low ball offers were. A 2nd? A 3rd? Worse?

I don't have the link to the Burke comments myself but looking at the deadline, the highest pick offered for a single UFA winger was Vanek. It was a conditional 5th+Vanek for Sebastian Collberg+conditional 2nd. I doubt Cammy would have gotten as much as that.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Well I heard rumours that he was offered a 3rd rounder. If that's true, I would have taken it. Hell I would have taken a 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th rounder because it's better than nothing...in that particular scenario.

[AC]

I recall Burke saying they couldn't even get a 3rd rounder for Cammy.

Originally Posted by Anduril

Really boils down to the fact that Jimmy's basis is:
"I don't believe if the Flames had taken whatever...that it would impact at all on what they could get...[in] any other deal in the future, for that matter."

Which is fine, but Treliving and likely every other GM would disagree with that (from another thread about the Cammy non-trade):

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'.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Not if I knew there were going to be multiple offers on the house and i didn't know how much the other offers were for... And I really wanted the house.

But you kind of do know the offers and roughly what they are going to be.

The NHL has 29 other teams. Every team knows roughly what assets the other team has, the needs of each team, and can make educated guesses on what is being offered. They also negotiated many times with each other and know each other's tendencies.

[Mightyfire89]

I understand the theory of what's being said here and I don't doubt that some or all GMs adhere to this, but as a blanket policy, I think it's asinine. That's just me.

[Day Tripper]

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'.

I wonder if Feaster had such a reputation...

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Krack Korn

Regarding last season, I think they should have traded Camalleri for whatever they could get because we all knew the team wasn't making the playoffs and I don't know about you, but I suspect the team's braintrust had a pretty good idea by the deadline that he wasn't going to re-sign with the Flames.

Since the thread is already fully derailed... My biggest problem with your logic is that you are looking at it strictly as playoffs/extension vs. lost asset.

First of all you need to consider the value Cammalleri gave the Flames between the trade deadline and the off-season. He helped make games more exciting, and gain a few more wins. We saw first hand how vital is hope and excitement during a rebuild. It is what keeps the average fan paying attention during a 'planned' playoff-less season. That attention converts into hockey tickets, extra viewers and merchandise. It is not something I can gauge, but the GM and president have their own estimations.

Second of all no one knows exactly what the deal was, it might have included taking a contract back. It could have been a depth prospect. Also, at the time we had Burke at the helm, so perhaps he wanted to leave the decision regarding the extension(at a higher cap value than he offered) to the new upcoming GM.

Finally third, Cammalleri is a person not a chess piece. A minor return might not have been significant enough to ask him to move. It would've probably meant leaving his wife and three year old daughter for a few months, or uproot them at a moments notice. Such is the hockey business and Cammalleri is compensated well for it, but why trade him just to claim you made a trade?