You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by TONGA
Shhh... they think that cuz he didn't get 6 million this time he won't next time.
The fact remains if somebody is willing to
Shhh... they think that cuz he didn't get 6 million this time he won't next time.
The fact remains if somebody is willing to pay 6-mil for him then so be it. Just because he asked once and will ask again does not translate into Cammi getting that type of deal.
Hopefully for the best interests of the Kings he will perform at that level next season. If he does good for him and the team, if he doesn't then he doesn't. But the simple fact remains, Cammi like all who sign will get paid what he is worth based on the current market level at that time.
No matter what you think Crockett... the franchise recognizes the future of this team as Kopitar, Johnson and Brown. The figurines tell me so. Anyone else is likely to be moved in the right deal.
Something tells me it can be done when you factor in a few facts.
1. Kopitar and Cammi's new salaries wouldn't kick in until 09/10.
2. The constant cap increases over time make long term deals a better investment.
3. The cap ceiling should rise somewhere between 5-10 mil by 09/10, assume 7 that alone gets Kopitar paid with space left over.
And, there is no telling what will happen by then. But the facts remain. Detroit has 24+ mil in cap space eaten up by 4 players.
Not only can it be done is already has and by the best team in the league.
Oh, you can definitely keep Cammalleri at $6 million.
The opportunity cost, short-term, might be watching Frolov leave. Long-term, it might be trading Cammalleri to sign some other current prospect, or trading some current prospect deserving a raise to keep Cammalleri.
And since you're drawing a comparison to Detroit, are you also suggesting that Cammalleri at $6 million is as good as any of Detroit's big-three at a similar cap hit? I didn't think so.
It's not a matter of can't, and it's not even a matter of want, it's a matter of need. If people differ on keeping Cammalleri, they should be differing on how much this team needs him, and nothing else. Because we can keep him, and I think most of us want to (asking price aside). But the opportunity cost...
Aside from the "we shouldn't move Cammalleri because he's ours and we developed him" crowd, I'm not sensing much reason behind the pro-Cammalleri argument.
- He's one dimensional, and even that dimension is not "elite" or even "all star" level (think Pat Elynuik or Tony Tanti, for you 30+ year olds)
- He's got one lame duck year left on his deal while being a famed tough negotiator
- He has a high trade value, while simultaneously being the easist to replace from within the organization
- The Kings' organizational strength is in offensive wingers
- Aside from Harrold, the Kings have no young defensemen ready to step up in the very near future
- He's an extremely selfish player
Do I need to go on? The picture seems pretty clear....
I don't understand how some people are saying that he's extremely one-dimensional and easily replaceable AND then saying that we can get a great young defenseman for him.
2. The constant cap increases over time make long term deals a better investment.
3. The cap ceiling should rise somewhere between 5-10 mil by 09/10, assume 7 that alone gets Kopitar paid with space left over.
I wouldn't rest so easily on the assumption that the cap will increase without fail. With cap figures tied to league revenue, I can't imagine that it's going to keep increasing with no end. Eventually you'll reach some kind of saturation point that'll see revenues plateau or even fall. The latter scenario could potentially cause that hard cap to come rolling back down the hill like an angry boulder to crush teams tailgating the cap ceiling.
I wouldn't rest so easily on the assumption that the cap will increase without fail. With cap figures tied to league revenue, I can't imagine that it's going to keep increasing with no end. Eventually you'll reach some kind of saturation point that'll see revenues plateau or even fall. The latter scenario could potentially cause that hard cap to come rolling back down the hill like an angry boulder to crush teams tailgating the cap ceiling.
Good point.
It's also worth pointing out that with increasing cap space comes increasing salaries, so the amount you earmark for a player cannot simply be a number based on the numbers we're seeing today. You have to project upward for the short-term, and beyond that no one knows for sure.
In other words, if you think Brown's contract looks good NOW...
I don't understand how some people are saying that he's extremely one-dimensional and easily replaceable AND then saying that we can get a great young defenseman for him.
I didn't say a "great" young defenseman. I don't know that Cammalleri alone could fetch a "great" player at any position, much less on the blueline. However, the Kings have clearly defined positions of strength and weakness, and Cammalleri is the prime player to consider in balancing those two things out.
The simple fact is that some teams always need to add offense, and a great deal of quality teams can afford to have a "specialty" player in the mix.
He is easily replaceable on this team and at this point in their development. If the Kings were a playoff team, and needed that extra punch, then you would be hard pressed to explain moving a Cammalleri. Right now? There are bigger, more important fish to fry.
Bandit
