Thread: Cammy
View Single Post
11-03-2011, 05:49 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Country: France
Posts: 979
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I don't think it would be. I think it would be easier than most because we're much further ahead than most rebuilding clubs are. We've got three great prospects to work with and some more that could be considered depth. That's not a bad place to start. And as you said (and I agreed with you) we're not going to finish dead last with the young guys we have even if we dealt away the vets.
What do you mean by being ahead of the other teams in the process ?
Being ahead because we have players already settled in the team, or being ahead because of the superior potential ?
Anyway, it doesnt matter. Not our fault, but a team like Washington or Pittsburgh is always going to be ahead of us for the first case.
For the second one, teams like Atlanta or Florida (Pavelec/Markström - Bogosian/Gudbranson - Kane/Huberdeau) probably have a better potential through their prospects.

I think that if you dont finish dead last (or 29th), its not worth it, because the prospects you are going to add are not that much better than the ones you have right now. They dont justify the 2+ years of misery.

Lets compare Evander Kane and Max Pacioretty for instance, Pacioretty is not that far at all from the Jets player. Kane was picked 4th overall, the kind of pick you may have in such a situation if you're not really last.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Sure. But the prospects you bring in can play with them.
I dont understand what do you mean by :
"But the prospects you bring in can play with them" about the competition between vets and prospects.
Its either you deal away your vets, or you dont, and the prospects are still playing in AHL or CHL.
But you'll never see a team not playing a prospect because of the vets of the team. If he is good enough to kick him down in the depth chart, he will. Gomez was still around, Eller was already there, but our management still promoted Desharnais in Montreal.

Anyway, dealing the vets to "let the young players play" just for the sake of it is a mistake. Not sure if im clear about this, but i dont have the words to explain it better right now.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
So keep Gomez. Keep some vets, we don't have to deal ALL of them away. I'm just saying we should trade away the ones that can bring us a good return. We could still keep say... Gomez and maybe somebody like Cole. We probably won't get anything for them anyway.

But, if we get a great prospect for Cammy... do it. Make the trades that make us better for the future.

Im sorry, but you have to deal all of your vets. Otherwise, you finish at 11th or 12th.
Thats exactly where no one wants to be.
At least, the useful players. Gomez is a special case.
The problem being that because of the floor, you cant deal each of them in one year.

Trading Cammalleri, i can see why some are interested, but you're giving up a 30-goal scorer.
There is rarely more than 3 or 4 30-goal scorer per draft class. And this kind of prospect is not traded (whats the point of such a trade for the team giving up such a prospect ?), so you have to deal for a pick to have a chance to find, at least, a player as good as him. You're going to lose your bet.

The 30-goal scorers in the last drafts, are almost always picked in the 6 or 7 first picks. Cammalleri is not going to be enough for a 5th overall pick. Gambling while trying to find a player like Benn or Hornqvist, thats not good management, thats pure luck, even if your scouting staff did wonders.

Thats possibly because of the nature of the board we are on, but trading a player like Cammalleri hoping you'll have a prospect and future as good as him, i dont really understand why its a good move.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Sure we can deal Pleks. We can deal anyone if the price is right. Just don't deal away youth or picks.

If we get more prospects to replace them at least we're further ahead. If we don't we are starting at zero. As for the prospect that we get from a vet... maybe he doesn't pan out. But that's why you trade for more than one. The more you have the better your odds.
For this team, right now, Plekanec is not trade-able. The price is never going to be right.
Unless you want to finish 13th, in that case, yes. Not sure you like that idea, though.
But he is trade-able only in the case of a rebuild, which is impossible to do with the young players we already have. If we trade him, our center depth is absolutely not good enough for a play-off spot, we are going to finish at the worst possible place, like 12th, and it will hurt the development of several players. (Eller and Desharnais as the obvious ones).
And a rebuild is always going to be long...2 years in the basement is the least you can use to really have a shot later.

"But that's why you trade for more than one. The more you have the better your odds. "
Which odds ? To find a NHL player, or to find a good NHL player ?
Thats not the same.
Good picks and prospects are traded for very good players.
There is a different world between the elite players and the rest of the pack, just like there is a different world between the "elite picks/prospects" and the rest of the pack.

Like i said, you dont trade Gionta, hoping that the 36th overall pick plus the B prospect you got are going to be as useful as he was, because he may be overpaid, you're not going to find a return worth the trouble.
Yes, the player you got is younger, slightly cheaper (but not enough to give you the room for a real improvement somewhere else) and bigger. Nice. Only problem, instead of being a good 2nd liner like Gionta, he is a 3rd liner playing 14mins per game.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Of course they were prospects. And if Cammy was 23 I'd be all for getting him. Heck, he was a guy I wished we'd targeted years ago when I called for a rebuild when we had Koivu.

This is an important point here... Individually, some of these guys are definitely the kind of guys that can help win cups. That's why they have trade value. But collectively (in my opinion anyway) I don't see it happening with the team we have now. That's why it probably makes sense to get younger players to build with. I love Cammy, always have. He's the one guy that might actually be worth the contract when he's healthy. I just don't think he's going to help us win anything right now though.
If you think that individiually, these players are good enough to be in a very competitive team, then, the core of this team can lead you somewhere. You just need to tweak it, but its a core, so be careful with it. One bad move and you're screwed.
A GM is not going to start a rebuild while he can tweak his team. Its much safer business-wise and...job-wise, too.
Our case is special, the business is not in danger as long as Quebec doesnt have a team, but the corporate sponsorship can be affected by poor performances after a while.

Why would Cammalleri being unable to help us to win anything ? He did prove that in playoffs, he was there. Individually, thats enough.
Collectively, thats connected to other problems, but Cammalleri is not a problem. If Gomez is playing like a 7M$ player...thats a very good team you have there. The size problem, according to the lines of the coach can disappear now that we did improve that area this summer.
I'll also say that we are probably complexed by this problem, because i dont feel its that much of a problem.

(I'll also say that our usual killers, Philadelphia and to a lesser extent, Boston, did both lose some of their qualities to fit to a much more friendly profile for us.)

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
There are many ways to look at that trade and it depends on who you ask. Many feel we didn't get enough. Others, felt that Halak was traded for high and wasn't even worth Eller and point to his 2nd string status now as proof. Still others think Eller is going to be a beast...

Personally, I thought we could've gotten more but obviously our scouts felt that he was worth it. They've been right more than they've been wrong and maybe they'll be right on this one. There are a lot of folks who feel he's going to bust out soon. I guess we have to wait and see.
About the Halak/Eller trade, its a perfect example of how difficult it is to take this kind of decision. Gauthier was murdered by a lot of specialists and by the fans. Well, not stricto sensu, but you understand.
A better return than Eller ? This has been debated more than once, but thats special because there is only 30 spots available and not so many options for a trade. But thats the point. You always feel, because you actually dont know how its done, that you could have received more, but thats the problem when you're dealing with potential...we dont know

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Yes we were. Stupidly lucky in fact.

But the bottom line is... we still got that pick and it landed us our best player. He's with us now and we can build with him. If we didn't have him, then I think we'd actually be in a position to actually (unintentionally) tank.

Or you can trade for them.
Trading for a Top-3 pick ? Impossible.
The last trade for such a pick, knowing how high it was, was done by Mike Milbury. 10 years ago. And it was one of the worst in history.

Sure, there is Burke's one with Kessel, but he did not know that he was going to draft that high, and honestly, i was not expecting such a fiasco either.

Today, its impossible to do such a deal without a big loser in the process. Its a very risky move. The kind of moves where you're screwing the franchise for a decade.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

But what about Vancouver? They dealt for not one but two top picks. Neither was a number one and both have won scoring titles. No, they haven't won a cup but that's not bad is it?

As far as LA goes... how about Jack Johnston? He was traded for as a prospect. They also got Kopitar top ten. Ottawa traded for picks and prospects that turned into Redden, Spezza and Chara. Boston (though they got lucky) got Seguin. Washington traded for Colorado's first this year (though Colorado is performing better than expected) and that could turn out to be good too. They also dealt for tons of picks as well. Kyle Turris (though certainly controversial) is out there now and can probably be had at some point too. Luongo was traded for as a prospect. Those kinds of players and picks CAN be acquired but it's easier to get them before they become stars.
Burke did manage to trade for the 2nd (so the point still stands, 1st or 2nd if you want to have great players) and 3rd overall in the same draft, but it was 12 years ago.
Still, he had to give away Bure, McCabe and their own first rounder in the process, i believe, and they were not part of playoffs during the last 3 or 4 years.
Its obviously difficult to compare the situations...

Jack Johnson was traded because of a disagreement with Rutherford, but it was, i think, a very mediocre move by the Canes.

Kopitar was a "regular" pick, by LA, at 10th or something like that, and they were the only ones balled enough to draft a player from Slovenia.

Spezza and Chara were traded (together) by the Great Mike Milbury, but it was more than 9-10 years ago...
Even if its not the most appropriate way to do this, just have a chat on the boards of the 5 worst teams in February, and ask them, what can i do to have your 1st round pick. It would take at least Subban and your own 1st round pick.

Now, is it worth it ?
Subban and Beaulieu for Larsson, is it ok ? Im not sure that its really such a good move.

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Look, you need more than a top five to win. No doubt about it man and I would never say otherwise. But to be fair here look at your examples.

Florida actually traded for Luongo as a prospect and then gave him away for a bag of toys. That's just bad management. And they didn't have anything to go with Horton or Jokinen (who they also got as a prospect).

Carolina won a cup with Staal so that's not too bad right?

Atlanta drafted two 50 goal scorers (and unfortunately one of them killed a teammate and had to leave) and didn't win. Okay... but it's not Kovalchuk's fault that they didn't win. They lost in SPITE of drafting him and Heatley not because of it. If anything, Atlanta being totally inept is actually an example of why drafting high actually works. If they can find two 50 goal scorers drafting high with their management and scouting... Heck, even Columbus found a Richard winner.

Colorado shouldn't be cited here. It is too soon to say but they already have Duchene. Would you like to have him? How do you think adding him would impact our club?
The teams i listed as picking no higher than 3rd but with more than one good pick were involved in that situation after the lockout.
Phoenix and Atlanta did own several (at least 4 in my head) top-10 picks.
Staal, Luongo, Horton, they were drafted and developed mostly before the lockout, and thats not who i am talking about. Yes, drafting VERY high (as you said in Atlanta's case) works. But drafting high, does not. Oh oh oh.

Im talking about Bogosian, Burmistrov, Johnson, Frolik, Gudbranson, Ekman-Larsson, Turris, this kind of player.

I think its a good reason to think that you have to draft 1st or 2nd, and not being happy with trading 4th or 5th, because thats not enough.
They are good players, but they're not good enough to justify 2+ years of pain and tears.
If we talk about drafting Tavares, Seguin, ok, yes, but there is almost always a gap, and a very important one because of the repercussions.

Of course, you can try to acquire them before they are stars, but thats just not going to happen. If their original team trade them, there is something wrong.

The bad moves like Florida's or Islanders's of the past are not that common anymore. Their mistakes are done in a way that no one can benefit from it nowadays.

Except Phaneuf, i cant find any case of a young player (under 25) still full of promises traded for nothing.
And even when they're dealt for something, they're not that many.

Kessel, and it backfired, then, Byfuglien and Ladd because of the cap situation in Chicago, and two swaps with Stewart/Johnson plus Goligoski/Neal. Halak and Varlamov as goalies, but in each one of them, one team has been critisized badly.

You can think about Horton, but he did not live up to the expectations at his draft day, as are the vast majority other players traded when they're so young.

You are saying "you need more than a top five to win". I agree. You need better than a top five to win. And honestly, its even possible that its better AND more, according to the last examples.

I think that the main problem i have with this board is how differently we perceive how to measure the value of the players/return. I dont understand why you'll trade for a player who may be as good as the one you give away. I simply dont.

If he is probably going to be better, yes, i can understand, but unfortunately, thats not how the market works.

To finish that painfully long post, about Cammalleri, the price is not going to be right either. No one is going to offer us a reliable enough potential 30-goal scorer for him, and no one is going to give us a pick good enough to be confident about the fact that we can draft a 30-goal scorer.
Sure, you're not forced to draft a forward and a sniper, but the point is that you're not going to receive a player worth as much.

Last edited by Rutabaga: 11-03-2011 at 09:54 AM. Reason: To save the readers' head from an explosion.
Rutabaga is offline   Reply With Quote