View Single Post
10-26-2011, 04:24 PM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,322
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
Given how well he's produced in the playoffs its fair to say his actually level of performance in Montreal is slightly higher, averaging about 32 goals and 64 points per 82 games. The sort of production that will put you in the top 50 every year if you play almost every game. Any guy that averages that kind of production is going to make at least 5.5-6 million on the open UFA market these days in a 64 million cap world, unless they sign for obscenely long term. Remember that guys that score 50 in a good year are making 4.5 on the open market these days. The fairness of the contract is based on comparison with Cammalleri's peers UFA forwards that left their team.

The wisdom of building a team around UFA's is a separate debate but Cammaleri isn't particularly overpaid in comparison to comparable players. I guy like Carter is a better deal but in order to sign him to that better deal you have to already have a Carter in your system. Luring talent away with money is more expensive than retaining what you already have and that's built into Cammaleri's sticker price. Especially for players of Cammalleri's ability which there are typically only 1 or 2 per offseason. This is a factor which is completely ignored if you just look at salary without context.

The take away is that if Cammalleri is only costing you money and cap-space his deal isn't outrageous. Those assets were what you gave up to get him, which is fine if you have an excess of them, which Montreal pretty much does.
right, and I don't think Cammy's deal is outrageous...

but I do think the expectations when he was given 6M$/year over 5 years (which, while not an 8-10 year deal, wasn't exactly a short term commitment either), were for him to be better, I'd say much better, than a sub-30goal, sub-60pt regular season player.

The playoff contributions obviously make up for it to a large degree, as do considerations given his injury problems...

but, as far as ROI, I think it is pretty fair to say that he's been a disappointment. I don't think he was given a 30M$ contract to be a top 50 player...

we signed him coming off of a season where he was 13th overall in pts, and 9th overall in goal scoring, 2 yrs prior he was 27th in pts, 24th in goals...

I don't think he was given the 6M$ per on the expectation that he'd drop significantly below that level of production, if anything, I imagine the expectation was that he'd be consistently in that top 20-top-15 range at worst, and hopefully progress into the top-10 range of production.

and really, his season averages with us, thus far, put him exactly on par with the 50th player in the league last year (Ladd, 29g, 59pts)... so his production has been 50th caliber, not "top 50" (or to be literal, not top-49

i'm not "hating" on Cammy. I do really think that playing in a less restrictive system, and playing with at least 1 linemmate that better complemented him (big body that opens lot's of space... Pleks is great at using his space and creatively is a good match, but given Cammy's lack of creativity with the puck, i think he'd benefit more, as he did in CGY, from playing on a line with at least 1 big body offensive presence like that.... mind you all players benefit from that, just that Cammy would translate that into a massive uptick in production imo).

In LA during his breakout year, he played with 6'2 210pd Frolov, who at the time was perhaps not a "PF", was definitely a skilled player with size who commanded a lot of attention in the offensive zone.

I don't think his contract was out of whack with the market at the time, it was high-end of what teams would have been offering him, given his one-dimensional nature and the reality that he'd need to play with an elite talent to make the most of his skills.

personally i still think it was a bad signing for us, in the context of the other roster decisions we made at the time, but on it's own, or had we not spent so much money on gionta/gomez, it wasn't that bad as far as UFA deals go.

if he could find a way to be that 35-45 goal, 70-80pt player we need/expected him to be for us consistently (instead of just playoff time, where he's been a 50g, 91pt-pro rated player, essentially the high end of what we could have hoped for), then fantastic.

but really, anything short of that is a disapointment for a markee/premium UFA signing, isn't it?

and as far as comparing that UFA class...
Havlat, @ 5M/per, has put up 21g/62pts on an 82 game scale for the Wild... healthier & better production at 1M@ less cap hit...

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote