Proposal: Edmonton - Montreal

[DingDongCharlie]

future consideration can’t be a player making 6.5M and only be traded to the team after the season. Doesn’t work like that

Don't tell them. We accept. We can sort out the "future considerations" later.

I'd do it, but only because the future considerations part isn't enforceable and I wouldn't follow through on the 2nd trade necessary to officially bring in Gallagher.

This.

Let Holland accept and ride off into the sunset.

New GM, "sorry we have no knowledge and there's zero legally binding obligation to honour the handshake agreement with/of a former employee. Have a nice day".

The saving grace would be Montreal fans would spend a year talking about how Campbell will be worth something at the deadline in the last year of his contract. The world laughs and somehow Hughes pulls a 1st rounder.


Everyone is happy.

 

[MXD]

That's something somebody who was kicked out of law faculty on its first year may accept.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

I was just watching l'Antichambre with Damphousse and Bob Hartley just now.
They were saying the same thing that i was saying earlier. Everybody is talking about it. It's that obvious. Gally just can't keep up anymore and is hurting the team.
They need to find a solution to get him off the team without buying him out.
The Habs will try to be competive way before Gallagher's contract is over. Marty is tired of losing. The players are tired of losing.

You should really go read again my original post.
I've never talked about the Habs buying out anyone now. Maybe later if they need the cap space.
Yes, Campbell sucks. We don't care. That's not the point of the trade. He can be sent down. Gallagher can't because of his NMC. The optics would be bad anyway.
Just bury Campbell in the minors until they absolutely need more cap space and save at least 2.65M until then.
It's about using the unused cap space this year to create some in the coming years, get rid of Gallagher in the process and create a roster spot for another player that can contribute.

Nope, that would be really dumb.

 

[Deus ex machina]

Nope, that would be really dumb.

Or how to say ''I can't accept i was wrong''

 

[malcb33]

Nope. He's toast. Stay far far away. If Hughes was inclined to take him he'd be coming with a couple 1st round picks to to take his abysmal contract

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Or how to say ''I can't accept i was wrong''

No, taking on Campbell (for Gally) would be the height of stupidity. Thankfully Hughes is not an idiot!

 

[Scintillating10]

Campbell and a 1st in 2025 for Andersson

Getting a first for Campbell dump not enough.

 

[pth2]

I like the idea, of Montreal taking a cap dump for the rest of the season, and then sending a cap dump after the season, but league rules probably make this impossible to set up in such a way no one can get cheated. I'd suggest just sending Campbell and picks to get bought out would be more effective (and if Montreal is the team Edmonton did this with, maybe the picks get used to get someone else to buy out Gallagher.

All that being said, Gallagher is toast. He can try and fade gracefully by taking on a smaller and smaller role, bu he doesn't seem to realize how much of a step he's lost.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

Oops I did it again, I played with your heart oh baby baby

 

[Deus ex machina]

I like the idea, of Montreal taking a cap dump for the rest of the season, and then sending a cap dump after the season, but league rules probably make this impossible to set up in such a way no one can get cheated. I'd suggest just sending Campbell and picks to get bought out would be more effective (and if Montreal is the team Edmonton did this with, maybe the picks get used to get someone else to buy out Gallagher.

All that being said, Gallagher is toast. He can try and fade gracefully by taking on a smaller and smaller role, bu he doesn't seem to realize how much of a step he's lost.

I don't see why this would not be allowed. Maybe there's a rule somewhere saying that it's not, but nobody came up with it yet.

You can see this as two separate trades. Even if the two trades involve the same teams, i don't see this as a problem as long as the trades don't involve the same player. I know you can't lend a player, but this is just like lending cap space.

 

[pth2]

I don't see why this would not be allowed. Maybe there's a rule somewhere saying that it's not, but nobody came up with it yet.

You can see this as two separate trades. Even if the two trades involve the same teams, i don't see this as a problem as long as the trades don't involve the same player. I know you can't lend a player, but this is just like lending cap space.

I think this could be seen as cap circumvention; lending cap space, other than through retention, would be cap circumvention.

I'd rather the Habs just let Gallagher play on the 4th line/healthy scratch until he realizes he's done. Maybe he waives his NMC and gets put on waivers. Clearing waivers must be... humbling. (for guys who still think they're high level performers)

 

[BernieParent]

Campbell + 2 1sts for Nick Seeler? He has been extremely effective as a physical defensive Dman, leads the league in blocked shots, and makes league minimum, giving the Oilers room to make another move.

 

[Deus ex machina]

I think this could be seen as cap circumvention; lending cap space, other than through retention, would be cap circumvention.

I'd rather the Habs just let Gallagher play on the 4th line/healthy scratch until he realizes he's done. Maybe he waives his NMC and gets put on waivers. Clearing waivers must be... humbling. (for guys who still think they're high level performers)

Maybe if the Habs picked Campbell off waivers and the Oilers picked him back up after the season. That could be seen as cap circumvention. Maybe.
That's not a bad idea actually...lol
It's not unusual for a player picked off waivers to return to their former team later. That team has first dibs for a little while. Not that they would need it in this case...lol
But it would cost EDM serious assets for MTL to take on that cap hit, even just for the season.

If they take back a different player instead, it looks better IMO, more like 2 separate transactions.
But maybe you're right.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Getting a first for Campbell dump not enough.

You have to consider the Anderson dump value back too though.

 

[Deus ex machina]

You have to consider the Anderson dump value back too though.

The Habs don't need to ''dump'' Anderson.

 

[Scintillating10]

You have to consider the Anderson dump value back too though.

We can keep Anderson. He's overpaid but Habs 10 million under cap

 

[Scintillating10]

Kovacevic for Ceci and a first may go? Both 6th d-men. Oilers free up caproom this deadline/next season. Could flip Kovacevic end of season for a 5th or so.

 

[viceroy]

I'd rather the Habs just let Gallagher play on the 4th line/healthy scratch until he realizes he's done. Maybe he waives his NMC and gets put on waivers.

I'm guessing after Gallagher's next major injury he'll take the Price/Weber special and ride off into the LTIR sunset.

You have to consider the Anderson dump value back too though.

Anderson doesn't have negative value. Campbell has radioactive negative value.

Kovacevic for Ceci and a first may go? Both 6th d-men. Oilers free up caproom this deadline/next season. Could flip Kovacevic end of season for a 5th or so.

Kovacevic gets thrown around too easily by some Habs fans. Savard and Kovacevic are our only NHL-ready RHD with Barron still trying to get it together and I believe Mailloux still needing to get some more reps in, in the AHL.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

In what world would the Oilers add an equally terrible forward while adding 1.5 in cap? Literally no one.

Because Gally is not equally terrible. There is no below average AHLer earning 5M like Campbell for 3 years.

 

[Space umpire]

I'd do it, but only because the future considerations part isn't enforceable and I wouldn't follow through on the 2nd trade necessary to officially bring in Gallagher.

And you would never make another trade. No GM would ever deal with you.

 

[ManofSteel55]

We can keep Anderson. He's overpaid but Habs 10 million under cap

You still have to consider how much negativity his contract has.

And you would never make another trade. No GM would ever deal with you.

It wouldn't happen anyway so no need to get testy about it.

 

[Space umpire]

You still have to consider how much negativity his contract has.


It wouldn't happen anyway so no need to get testy about it.

You’ve confused the words factual and testy.

 

[ManofSteel55]

You’ve confused the words factual and testy.

Have I? If you were being factual, you would have pointed out how such a proposal would be cap circumvention and is not allowed.

PS - It was a joke. Settle down.

 

[Deus ex machina]

Have I? If you were being factual, you would have pointed out how such a proposal would be cap circumvention and is not allowed.

PS - It was a joke. Settle down.

So what facts exactly are you using to say that it's cap circumvention?

I'd genuinely really like to know.

 

[Space umpire]

Have I? If you were being factual, you would have pointed out how such a proposal would be cap circumvention and is not allowed.

PS - It was a joke. Settle down.

I’ve been on this site under one name or another since 2006.
Nothing here has ever been important enough to “unsettle” me.
I’m guessing it may be different for you. Not everyone is as fragile as you are.