Canadiens - Kings Deal

[Whomp]

Canadiens get:
G Michael Leighton, $1.6m (2011-2012)

Kings get:
D Nathan Beaulieu, $m (P-2011)
F Olivier Archambault, $m (P-2011)
1M Cash

[Anthony]

veto because of your profile picture...

just kidding 

[BrewCrew]

I accept.   

[BeanTown]

Thats a lot to give for a Goalie that probably will play the entire year in the AHL. PHI has Bryz and Bob, Leighton wont get a sniff all year IMO, so a good prospect, another prospect AND a million cash is pretty high price for nothing

[izaman3]

I agree with Bean and I veto.

[GypsieDeathBringer]

You veto guys aren't seeing the big picture.  The Habs gave up 1m in cash and took on 1.6m, but the brewcrew bid on Gomez so half of his 7.4m would come off the books for the Habs if I'm not mistaken.  A little back door dealing never hurt nobody.

[Rob]

You veto guys aren't seeing the big picture.  The Habs gave up 1m in cash and took on 1.6m, but the brewcrew bid on Gomez so half of his 7.4m would come off the books for the Habs if I'm not mistaken.  A little back door dealing never hurt nobody.

I've gotta agree with Corey here.  Like it or not that bid on Gomez is part of this deal.  I'm inclined to approve but with 2 vetoes I'm going to send this to the ProFSL TC for approval. 

[Rob]

Posted on ProFSL TC for approval:  http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=31245.0

[izaman3]

I didn't pay close enough attention to the Gomez bid to realize Brew was doing it to save the Canadians cap space. I retract my veto, but it looks like Rob already submitted it to the ProFsl TC.

[-BA-]

I didn't pay close enough attention to the Gomez bid to realize Brew was doing it to save the Canadians cap space. I retract my veto, but it looks like Rob already submitted it to the ProFsl TC.

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.