Yeah Calgary knew entering into this trade that Cammalleri might leave after one season. By the sounds of it, it wasn't his first choice to leave either, it was Calgary's inability to offer him a long term deal (just stating they didn't have the resources to do so).
If Calgary retains Cammalleri then sure it may be easier to say Calgary got the better end of this deal, after all, what has Teubert done so far? He looks promising but there's no guarantees in hockey.
All things considered we had a one season rental and no Cup to show for it, and they have a roster player who could potentially be playing for 15+ seasons. It was a risk Sutter took, not necessarily a trade you can break down to a simple win/lose.
Wow talk about alot of wrong information in there... here is how the trades actually worked... and in this order
1) our 1st in 2008 and a 2nd in 2009 for Cammalleri and a 2nd in 2008 (which was originally ours via the Conroy trade)... we drafted Wahl with that pick
2) Tanguay and a 5th (i think) to Montreal for 1st in 2008 and a 2nd in 2009... we drafted Nemisz with the 1st and traded the 2nd for Bourque
3) LA traded our first and another 1st to Anaheim for their 1st... in which they drafted Teubert
however the Tanguay trade was agreed upon prior to acquiring Cammalleri.. so basically we got Cammalleri, Nemisz, Wahl and Bourque for Tanguay, a 1st, 2nd and 5th
and when you look at it that way... we won big time
Thanks for posting that, I like how people conveniently forget how we have Nemisz (great looking prospect), Wahl (another high potential prospect) and Borque (obvious answer) and get fixated on Cammy for Teubert
[QUOTE=ronbons;20126055]Ya...I was just simplifying the deal. But LA is still probably very happy as they didnt need Cammy in a rebuilding year.[/QUOTE]
LOL LA has been rebuilding for what... 15 years? It gets kind of obvious that LA would have benefited from Cammy... and instead they have potential like every other year. The key is to balance veterans and prospects...