Rangers and Pens Divisional Trade

[izaman3]

I just don't see why it would be tied to contract length.  It was put in purely to stop top teams from trading picks for getting giant lump sum cap relief making the salary cap non-existent.  Otherwise it could just be worded "When trading a player(s) a team can retain only up to 100% of the contract(s)" and eliminate the idea of cash trades all together. Just my two cents.  I'll wait for Rob to rule now.   

Yeah the idea is to resign Couturier after this season, but can't as I'd be over the cap since a resign kicks in immediately.  Having Cho resign Couturier then trade eats up more of their cap space this year.

If it wasn't tied to contract length, then someone could trade a $6m contract expiring this year and agree to trade $5m in cash for the next 5 years, or 10 or 15. What's the limit if it's not tied to a contract? I trust Pit to resign Couturier after the season, so that's not the issue for me. But I remember more than a few times trades with different cash amounts for different years, so in my mind, since in-season extensions kick in immediately, if NYR extensions Sean this year, and it covers it all this year, they can still send the $2m in subsequent years.

[GypsieDeathBringer]

If it wasn't tied to contract length, then someone could trade a $6m contract expiring this year and agree to trade $5m in cash for the next 5 years, or 10 or 15. What's the limit if it's not tied to a contract?

Exactly.  That is the one instance it could be abused and I would love to see something like that pass this committee.  It would be so creative and show a real knowledge of our league.  Something like Matthews/McDavid being traded for a big package and then cash for 10 years.  That is the kind of out of the box trade I like to see.  Let's keep our options open.

[SlackJack]

I also don't think money can be traded like that independent of an active contract. I'm waiting for Rob to weigh in before voting.

:iatp:

[cho34]

Lots to read lol.

In terms of the trade I agree as I get 3 specs to fill out the farm and a goalie next to parsons in calgary. My intention was to trade Coutourier. While I knew money was a viable trade chip - i had no qualms giving money on the resign contract as I know that will have the cap space in the coming years as a rebuilding team.

Well will wait on Rob for the decision

[Rob]

Leave it to you gusy to find a nifty gray area in my rules while I'm away - LOL. 

The reason for the rule change on this is exactly as Corey says, to avoid teams trading cash for picks.  But now that it's out there it needs to be addressed.  And I see it like Ian does and I'd like to update the rule wording so that this trade would not be allowed.

Having said that, there was no rule to interpret and that's my fault.  This trade does not violate the spirit of the original rule, in my opinion.  I'd like to make an exception to allow this one time only.

TC - please approve the trade and my exception. 

[WestCoastExpress]

I know I can't enforce it, but my approval is (would be) based on PIT re-signing Couturier at seasons end. :iatp:


If they're not re-signing Couturier, it just means PIT has $2m more in cap space than the rest of the league to work with for the next 4 seasons.

(Again, the easy way around that would have been for NYR to re-sign Couturier and then pay a bit more salary on him this season).

I was just always under the assumption money paid was attached to a player. I mean, the real life NHL can't trade their cap space for assets, although a few years back Arizona would have loved that as they had to eat terrible contracts just to hit the cap floor.

What would be the point of a salary cap if one team could trade for an extra $20m in cap space from a team like Arizona? (Both literally a few years back in the NHL, and currently in our league....if Slack knew he could have, he'd be working with a team cap of like $30m right now and have traded the rest of his cap space away a couple of years ago, haha)

[izaman3]

 :iatp:

Same sentiments as Cally

[GypsieDeathBringer]

I know I can't enforce it, but my approval is (would be) based on PIT re-signing Couturier at seasons end. :iatp:

If they're not re-signing Couturier, it just means PIT has $2m more in cap space than the rest of the league to work with for the next 4 seasons.

(Again, the easy way around that would have been for NYR to re-sign Couturier and then pay a bit more salary on him this season).

I will put it as part of the trade that I'll resign Couturier as part of the trade to alleviate any worries. 

[Rob]

When we started back in 2011 cash exchanges were OK in the NHL.  And the only reason we changed the rule was the draft pick thing.  In 2013 the new CBA banned the trading of cash, so it makes sense that we update along with the NHL.  But as I mentioned, the real reason we did it is to prevent the trading of cash for draft picks. 

Now that I've had time to read this through again, I do believe that even without any added wording that the trade violates the rule, even if it doesn't violate the spirit of the rule.  A contract includes the years and the money. 

And then what I've done is forced you all to not only vote on the balance of the trade itself but to vote for or against me as an arbiter of the rules, which really isn't fair.

I'm sorry to say that I am going to veto this and ask you both to redo it.  I'm so sorry to flip flop, but I looked a little too quickly this morning and didn't really think it through.  I hope this doesn't mess you up too much.  I do believe it can be reworked if NY extends Cout pre-trade.  If the cap isn't there to do it I think it can be finagled.  I'm willing to give you both an extra 48 hours beyond the trade deadline to re-work this.  And I apologize again. 

[Rob]

 :judge: