Canadiens - Kings Deal

[Rob]

I think to call the Gomez bid part of the deal is a stretch. He nominated a player for Montreal, thats all he did. He isn't even the winner of the bid, so all it cost him is a nomination of a player with a potential investment of 200K if noone bid on him. So he gets these prospects and money for a player who isn't going to play and a nomination. I don't buy that as a justification to rule 1 way or the other. Not to mention, it was never mentioned in the original trade.

I am not saying that the trade should or shouldn't be vetoed yet, and kudos to these 2 for coming up with this creative way to shed some money on a bad contract. That being said, I feel this is a loophole to shed yourself of a bad contract and I don't like it going forward. Something needs to be addressed here, in my opinion.

I think it's up to the TC members to determine whether to consider it part of the deal or not.  Some might want to judge the trade on it's own and others may want to look at the outside elements that effect the deal.  I'm fine with either interpretation.  I don't think every trade needs to be scrutinized on every possible level, like, what you and others have said about what LA is giving up.  All it cost him is a nomination of a player, yes, but I'd rather look at it based on what each team ends up with in the end.  In this case, LA is getting prospects and Montreal is getting cap room.  So, why does it matter what they're giving up individually if in the end they're both benefiting?  I think Gomez would have been picked up eventually, but there's a huge advantage to having him picked up now rather than later as Montreal can use his extra cash now instead of later when a lot of good players will be gone.  If Montreal lands a good player in FA because of this deal don't we need to consider that part of this deal in a way?  So LA doesn't give much, but Montreal gets a lot, doesn't that make up for it?

As far as addressing a loophole goes I don't think there's any effective way to do it.  In cases like that I think it's better to let the chips fall where they may instead of over-regulating things that are somewhat out of our control anyway.  In the future this kind of thing can be done whether we address it or not.  I mean, for instance, the Red Sox and A's recently made a waiver wire deal for some players.  How do we know that there wasn't some waived player out there the Sox were trying to block from getting to Texas and Theo made a call to Beane and said we'll do this deal if you put a claim on that player so Texas doesn't grab him?  I don't know if that's a great example and I'm obviously fabricating a situation to support my point but it's entirely possible.  How could MLB regulate that? 

In this case we know the details, the teams were up front about it.  I say leave it to the TC to determine if there's some manipulation going on that's not called for, I think that's partly why we're here. 

[-BA-]

Neither of the players involved in this trade brought up the Gomez piece, that was Gypsy.

To me a TC should evaluate what is put in front of them by the teams in question. If the Gomez nomination is part of the deal then that should be laid out in the original trade.

[Rob]

Neither of the players involved in this trade brought up the Gomez piece, that was Gypsy.

To me a TC should evaluate what is put in front of them by the teams in question. If the Gomez nomination is part of the deal then that should be laid out in the original trade.

I think it's reasonable in situations like this where there's an accommodation being made outside of the trade which effects the trade in some way to be listed as part of the deal.  Perhaps a gentleman's agreement is in order where if something like this is done again it should be posted in the trade thread if the teams involved want it to be considered in the approval of the trade. 

[-BA-]

All this being said, I don't have a huge problem with the deal. When you run up against the cap, sometimes you have to lose the deal to be able to help yourself with cap relief.

I don't think its going to swing the title in any direction 

[BrewCrew]

I didn't think that we could include an agreement of me being on his player in the trade.

It was certainly a huge part of why Whomp did the deal, and was a key component in our negotiations.

If we HAVE to add that to the deal to make it pass, we can I guess. Just didn't think it was something that could really be added and didn't want to make it seem like it was some illegal move.

[Rob]