Money in trades

YogiCanucks

Registered User
Jan 1, 2007
19,658
1
Vancouver BC
I don't know when it happened but I can tell you soon after the Gretzky trade Money was banned from hockey transactions. Brian Burke claims he would like to see money in transactions in deals allowed. I tend to agree with him. I mean its no different dangling 3 million dollars in a team in depts face than it is dangling a Top Tier prospect in a team that seriously lacks young talent.

Thoughts?
 

Northern Dancer

The future ain't what it used to be.
Mar 2, 2002
15,199
13
5 K from the ACC
I don't know when it happened but I can tell you soon after the Gretzky trade Money was banned from hockey transactions. Brian Burke claims he would like to see money in transactions in deals allowed. I tend to agree with him. I mean its no different dangling 3 million dollars in a team in depts face than it is dangling a Top Tier prospect in a team that seriously lacks young talent.

Thoughts?

I'm with Burke, it is revenue sharing at it's best. You should be able to buy players or draft picks. Years ago if Pittsburgh could have sold Jagr perhaps they could have kept Kovalev (or was it the other way around). I think it should be allowed. last year the Leafs gave over 10 million for revenue sharing and got jack in return.
Before anyone calls me a homer, I admit it !!!
 

Trollo*

Guest
i cringed when the flyers gave the nordiques 15 million along with a bunch of good players for lindros but i'm all for money in deals.
 

pld459666

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,771
7,796
Danbury, CT
I don't know when it happened but I can tell you soon after the Gretzky trade Money was banned from hockey transactions. Brian Burke claims he would like to see money in transactions in deals allowed. I tend to agree with him. I mean its no different dangling 3 million dollars in a team in depts face than it is dangling a Top Tier prospect in a team that seriously lacks young talent.

Thoughts?


to the bolded statement = WHAT???

Washington paid (is paying) 20 million of Jagr's contract. Giving the Rangers 20 million or paying it themselves is all semantics but the fact is that that's 20 freaking million dollars just a few short years ago.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,569
1,091
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
Ya, but the new CBA banned teams from agreeing to pay a portion of a players contract as a condition of a trade.

I think the point was allowing teams to trade a player or draft pick for nothing but cold, hard cash. Like, say, the Pens in horrible debt "selling" the right to draft Crosby for $200 million or whatever another team would pay to buy that pick at the time. Or for Nashville to "sell" Shea Weber to cover their costs, etc.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
IIRC money as a component of trades was not officially banned until he last CBA.

However the Commissioner always has the right to review and reject a trade based on some loosely worded "best interests of the NHL" criteria previously.
 

John Belushi

Registered Boozer
Feb 5, 2006
2,675
242
North Vancouver
to the bolded statement = WHAT???

Washington paid (is paying) 20 million of Jagr's contract. Giving the Rangers 20 million or paying it themselves is all semantics but the fact is that that's 20 freaking million dollars just a few short years ago.

Don't mind StopItsNaslundTime, he's a little odd. And you gotta be, to have almost 500 posts in a months time.
 

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
105,727
18,855
Sin City
There are two issues here.

One is eliminating the payment of actual $$s as part of a trade.

Second is allowing a team to trade a player retaining some of the cap $$s.

Both are prohibited by the 2005 CBA.

However, there has been some discussion by the GMs that allowing a team to keep part of the cap hit to trade a player might need to change. (That's not to say how the actually salary will be paid, just the cap hit.)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->