Proposal: Edmonton - Montreal

[Fourier]

I understand why you would want Anderson instead of Gallagher and that's the reason it's not realistic.

What i proposed is basically a trade of cap dumps.
Anderson is not a cap dump.
There's no need to buy out Anderson.
Even buying out Gallagher would be a last resort thing if he's becoming too much of a problem for the team.

Anderson if traded would definitely be a cap dump. That does not mean that the Habs will do that. But at $5.5M for a very inconsistent 30 year old injury-prone winger with three years left who has 15 points there is no way he is not a significant negative value in any trade. at best the Habs would have to eat 1/2 his contract to trade him without taking back a similar deal.

The Habs can certainly keep both players. But your trade does not really help the Oilers overall no matter how much you say it does. They would have to buyout Gallagher. The difference in the buyouts would be $4M in real dollars and $2.5M in cap space over buying out Campbell. To make this palatable the Habs would certainly have to add at least a 2nd to cover the $4M in real money even with the cap space the Oilers would gain this year. Even then, for reasons I have stated, it would not be a good idea for the Oilers.

 

[pth2]

My suggested variant would be based on the assumption that the Habs will buyout both of Gallagher and Anderson next off season.

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

For all Anderson's faults, we'll just keep him. Even Gallagher is probably tolerable for another full season (at which point his buyout becomes more and more palatable)

Anderson if traded would definitely be a cap dump. That does not mean that the Habs will do that. But at $5.5M for a very inconsistent 30 year old injury-prone winger with three years ...

He's 29, to 30, so he'll be 32 at the end of his deal, not 33 as you're implying, just to make him look as bad as possible.

Stop lying.

 

[Fourier]

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

For all Anderson's faults, we'll just keep him. Even Gallagher is probably tolerable for another full season (at which point his buyout becomes more and more palatable)


He's 29, to 30, so he'll be 32 at the end of his deal, not 33 as you're implying, just to make him look as bad as possible.

Stop lying.

The point of my post was to suggest a variant of the trade that would make sense for the Oilers. The assumption was only to frame why it could be plausible if the Habs saw Anderson as a buyout candidate. If the Habs don't view either players as buyout candidates that's fine. But then there is no reasonable trade here if that is the case. The OP's deal is not workable for the Oilers as stated.

Anderson is 29 right now but would be 30 in the off season which is when this hypothetical deal would take place. I did not say anything about how old he would be when he finishes this deal. So maybe you need to hold back on your accusations about lying.

 

[TFHockey]

The Oilers would be better served by buying out Campbell's contract at the end of the season rather than dealing two first round picks like some have suggested on here.

 

[pth2]

So maybe you need to hold back on your accusations about lying.

Maybe stick to true facts rather than making stuff up ?

 

[Fourier]

Maybe stick to true facts rather than making stuff up ?

What exactly did I make-up? That Anderson will be 30 in the off season? Maybe I am missing something here but in my world someone who is 29 on Feb 28th with a birthday in May turns 30 prior to October.

You do realize that every trade proposal made on these boards are made via hypotheticals.

 

[pth2]

What exactly did I make-up? That Anderson will be 30 in the off season? Maybe I am missing something here but in my world someone who is 29 on Feb 28th with a birthday in May turns 30 prior to October.

You do realize that every trade proposal made on these boards are made via hypotheticals.

He. is. not. 30.

And the point of this thread was an arbitrage trade between cap room now vs cap room over the summer, so it's not as if there was a projection that any trade was in the summertime.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

For all Anderson's faults, we'll just keep him. Even Gallagher is probably tolerable for another full season (at which point his buyout becomes more and more palatable)


He's 29, to 30, so he'll be 32 at the end of his deal, not 33 as you're implying, just to make him look as bad as possible.

Stop lying.

Unfortunately for the Habs, making Anderson look bad doesn't take any work at all. He hasn't cracked 35 points as a Hab and doesn't look like he will.

 

[Deus ex machina]

Anderson if traded would definitely be a cap dump. That does not mean that the Habs will do that. But at $5.5M for a very inconsistent 30 year old injury-prone winger with three years left who has 15 points there is no way he is not a significant negative value in any trade. at best the Habs would have to eat 1/2 his contract to trade him without taking back a similar deal.

The Habs can certainly keep both players. But your trade does not really help the Oilers overall no matter how much you say it does. They would have to buyout Gallagher. The difference in the buyouts would be $4M in real dollars and $2.5M in cap space over buying out Campbell. To make this palatable the Habs would certainly have to add at least a 2nd to cover the $4M in real money even with the cap space the Oilers would gain this year. Even then, for reasons I have stated, it would not be a good idea for the Oilers.

I don't see the Habs giving up a draft pick to save real money. I think they'd rather do the opposite.

As a fan, i don't pay players so i care about cap space and not real money.
But yes, i've mentionned in my OP that real money could be a factor with owners.
And that's one of the reasons i didn't include a draft pick going to MTL.

And don't forget that the Habs would be taking on around 1.3M of real money this year too.

You are aware that usually when you borrow something, there's interest and you have to give more later, right?
Saying that you'd rather have 2.5M in 3 years than have 3.85M now when the Oilers are desperate for cap space tells me that you're not looking at this in good faith.
Seems like you're only interested in a deal where the Oilers are the clearcut winners. What you call ''make sense for the Oilers''.

 

[Fourier]

I don't see the Habs giving up a draft pick to save real money. I think they'd rather do the opposite.

As a fan, i don't pay players so i care about cap space and not real money.
But yes, i've mentionned in my OP that real money could be a factor with owners.
And that's one of the reasons i didn't include a draft pick going to MTL.

And don't forget that the Habs would be taking on around 1.3M of real money this year too.

You are aware that usually when you borrow something, there's interest and you have to give more later, right?
Saying that you'd rather have 2.5M in 3 years than have 3.85M now when the Oilers are desperate for cap space tells me that you're not looking at this in good faith.
Seems like you're only interested in a deal where the Oilers are the clearcut winners. What you call ''make sense for the Oilers''.

I never missed the money that the Habs would be spending this year in my calculation though admittedly I did not explicitly state it so it is easily possible to assume I did. . The net is about $2.7M in real money. You may not care about that but the people who pay bills do. That is going to cost a 2nd in today's market.

You are trying to force a square peg in a round hole here to justify your proposal that no Oiler fan has seen as appropriate. I have said on multiple occasions that the idea has merit but this specific deal does not work from an Oiler perspective for exactly the reasons I stated. I have given you a scenario that would probably work for the Oilers. You have stated that it does not work for the Habs. That is perfectly fine. I have made my case for why it might but I am not going to argue that it would be acceptable for the Habs. While I do follow the team fairly closely, having been a die hard fan for 20 years prior to the Oilers joining the NHKL, I don't claim to know better how other teams will play out their hands. than their own fans. But I do know the Oilers cap situation pretty well and I am extremely skeptical of your take on how the team would see this. This is why trades in real life are harder than they are on here. Hockey assets are not currency where you can trade a twenty for two tens and it works out even for both teams. Each teams needs must be factored in.

 

[pth2]

Seems like you're only interested in a deal where the Oilers are the clearcut winners. What you call ''make sense for the Oilers''.

I'll give you this - your proposal had value for Edmonton as well as for Montreal. They might not value cap room this season as much as you think they should, but a setup where Edmonton buys out Gallagher this summer in exchange for getting rid of Campbell right now (and freeing up room for upgrades before the trade deadline) had value on both sides.

I don't think it's manageable, and if it happened without being stated outright it would seem very suspect, but there was value on both sides (enough on both sides? Always hard to figure out)

 

[Fourier]

He. is. not. 30.

And the point of this thread was an arbitrage trade between cap room now vs cap room over the summer, so it's not as if there was a projection that any trade was in the summertime.

I'll repeat this once more so it is clear. The trade being proposed would see Anderson moved to the Oilers in the off season. At that point he would be 30. As such in this hypothetical transaction his value as a 30 year old is the relevant part of that The part about me implying his deal would end when he is 33 you made up. The only justification for what you write is if you think Anderson would have substantially more value now as a 29 year old for the next 6 weeks than he would in the off season when he is 30. If so that seems to be a ridiculous point to make to justify calling someone a liar. Why not just take the clear loss and move on.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

I don't see the Habs giving up a draft pick to save real money. I think they'd rather do the opposite.

As a fan, i don't pay players so i care about cap space and not real money.
But yes, i've mentionned in my OP that real money could be a factor with owners.
And that's one of the reasons i didn't include a draft pick going to MTL.

And don't forget that the Habs would be taking on around 1.3M of real money this year too.

You are aware that usually when you borrow something, there's interest and you have to give more later, right?
Saying that you'd rather have 2.5M in 3 years than have 3.85M now when the Oilers are desperate for cap space tells me that you're not looking at this in good faith.
Seems like you're only interested in a deal where the Oilers are the clearcut winners. What you call ''make sense for the Oilers''.

We've got Habs fans in the other thread trying to tell us that Ceci+1st+Holloway is a fair price for David Savard so....

 

[pth2]

I'll repeat this once more so it is clear. The trade being proposed would see Anderson moved to the Oilers in the off season. At that point he would be 30. As such hypothetical transaction. h his value as a 30 year old is the relevant part of that The part about me implying his deal would end when he is 33 you made up. The only justification for what you write is if you think Anderson would have substantially more value now as a 29 year old for the next 6 weeks than he would in the off season when he is 30. If so that seems to be a ridiculous point to make to justify calling someone a liar. Why not just take the clear loss and move on.

Loss ? 29 is not 30. Stop lying.

 

[Fourier]

Loss ? 29 is not 30. Stop lying.

I have no idea now if you are being serious. I'll simply assume that you are not.

 

[Deus ex machina]

We've got Habs fans in the other thread trying to tell us that Ceci+1st+Holloway is a fair price for David Savard so....

I was talking about an individual, not a whole fan base.

 

[Deus ex machina]

I'll give you this - your proposal had value for Edmonton as well as for Montreal. They might not value cap room this season as much as you think they should, but a setup where Edmonton buys out Gallagher this summer in exchange for getting rid of Campbell right now (and freeing up room for upgrades before the trade deadline) had value on both sides.

I don't think it's manageable, and if it happened without being stated outright it would seem very suspect, but there was value on both sides (enough on both sides? Always hard to figure out)

Yeah, i've mentioned that draft picks and players could be involved but i didn't give specifics. That wasn't the point of the idea.
I expected that the deal would be already too complicated for some.
And i didn't want it to turn into a battle where part of both fanbases complain that their team is losing the deal. That obviously failed...lol

I really don't see what is suspect about it. Until i see proof otherwise, i won't change my mind.

It's really just two seperate cap dump trades. They are still allowed, right?
Pacioretty was traded to Carolina for futures. It was a cap dump. It wasn't seen as cap circumvention.
Same thing here.

Let's say the Habs pick up Campbell on waivers now and Edmonton reclaims him on waivers after the season, would that be suspect or illegal?
It wouldn't be the first time that a player picked on waivers is returning to the original team.
What would be the difference between that and the Habs picking up a one year cap dump?
Because the two teams would have an understanding between them?
Like a trade?

 

[Deus ex machina]

I never missed the money that the Habs would be spending this year in my calculation though admittedly I did not explicitly state it so it is easily possible to assume I did. . The net is about $2.7M in real money. You may not care about that but the people who pay bills do. That is going to cost a 2nd in today's market.

You are trying to force a square peg in a round hole here to justify your proposal that no Oiler fan has seen as appropriate. I have said on multiple occasions that the idea has merit but this specific deal does not work from an Oiler perspective for exactly the reasons I stated. I have given you a scenario that would probably work for the Oilers. You have stated that it does not work for the Habs. That is perfectly fine. I have made my case for why it might but I am not going to argue that it would be acceptable for the Habs. While I do follow the team fairly closely, having been a die hard fan for 20 years prior to the Oilers joining the NHKL, I don't claim to know better how other teams will play out their hands. than their own fans. But I do know the Oilers cap situation pretty well and I am extremely skeptical of your take on how the team would see this. This is why trades in real life are harder than they are on here. Hockey assets are not currency where you can trade a twenty for two tens and it works out even for both teams. Each teams needs must be factored in.

And they were.
The needs of the Oilers are immediate and the Habs' are longer term. Both teams win.

Moving on...

 

[pth2]

I really don't see what is suspect about it. Until i see proof otherwise, i won't change my mind.

It'll be impossible to change your mind then, since this is down to interpreting league by-laws, and several teams have had consequences imposed long after events occurred (think of long-term deals considered cap circumvention), so teams will stay away from anything that is technically ok but might be suspect.

If the trades were simultaneous, sure, but now you're trying to transfer Montreal's LTIR cap room to Edmonton with no intention of any player involved being useful anywhere. If Edmonton were making 2 separate deals with 2 separate deals, this would look better, ie, sending Campbell to Montreal in one deal (before the deadline) with picks, and then at the draft acquiring picks from SJ for taking Vlasic and then buying him out, it would accomplish the same thing overall for Edmonton without being as suspect.

 

[Deus ex machina]

It'll be impossible to change your mind then, since this is down to interpreting league by-laws, and several teams have had consequences imposed long after events occurred (think of long-term deals considered cap circumvention), so teams will stay away from anything that is technically ok but might be suspect.

If the trades were simultaneous, sure, but now you're trying to transfer Montreal's LTIR cap room to Edmonton with no intention of any player involved being useful anywhere. If Edmonton were making 2 separate deals with 2 separate deals, this would look better, ie, sending Campbell to Montreal in one deal (before the deadline) with picks, and then at the draft acquiring picks from SJ for taking Vlasic and then buying him out, it would accomplish the same thing overall for Edmonton without being as suspect.

That's pretty much the definition of a cap dump, no?


So you feel that it's suspect without really giving me reasons why.

You didn't answer any of my questions BTW.

 

[pth2]

That's pretty much the definition of a cap dump, no?


So you feel that it's suspect without really giving me reasons why.

You didn't answer any of my questions BTW.

I don't owe you an explanation to your sealioning.

 

[Deus ex machina]

I don't owe you an explanation to your sealioning.

What?...lol
Is that really what it is?
I think you might be overreacting a little here.

You made the somewhat gratuitous statement a few times that it was cap circumvention, like you knew better. So i asked you to back it up.
You just gave me some random exemple of what you feel is ok and avoided direct questions that could make you look bad.
I just reminded you of that. That's all.

Sorry if i backed you into a corner but nobody is forcing you to give answers that you don't have.

I guess calling it sealioning is a good way to end a debate that you're losing.

But thank you. You made me learn a new english word.

 

[Kimota]

We do that but you get Allen as well.

 

[Adam da bomb]

What?...lol
Is that really what it is?
I think you might be overreacting a little here.

You made the somewhat gratuitous statement a few times that it was cap circumvention, like you knew better. So i asked you to back it up.
You just gave me some random exemple of what you feel is ok and avoided direct questions that could make you look bad.
I just reminded you of that. That's all.

Sorry if i backed you into a corner but nobody is forcing you to give answers that you don't have.

I guess calling it sealioning is a good way to end a debate that you're losing.

But thank you. You made me learn a new english word.

I also have never heard of sealioning, I have nothing more to add.

 

[thadd]

I wanted Gallager on my team BIG time.... 5+ years ago.

Campbell + 2 firsts for future considerations for a 7th rounder is a pretty fair trade, IMO.