Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Is there a point though that the NHL just says no and doesn't approve a deal if it is so obviously one sided? I know that several years they banned trades directly for money because it is seen as detrimental to the league. If the Kings are obviously trading hockey assets for what is essentially money, would the league ever step in?
|
Don't overlook the cap space aspect of it either, it's not just cash at this point. Teams like New York can no longer throw money at Redden to get him off the team. It could be argued that the small market teams would be in favour of Los Angeles having to lose assets for signing a bad contract. Make the other 'have' teams question their decisions before throwing an absurd amount of money at a player because they can.
As for cap dumps, the Devils essentially traded a first to get rid of Malakhov's contract. Leafs have taken on Lombardi, Primeau and Kolzig which amounted to essentially 'cash' trades for draft picks/assets. Kotalik was purely a cash dump in the Regehr trade. There's been more than a couple and the league arguably made it easier with their decision to allow to retain salary in transactions.
However, with the team unable to bury (most) of Richard's contract, a team taking on Richards is not only on the hook for 22M in cash but a long-term sizable cap hit as well. Cap's a valuable asset, giving it up should require the King's to throw in valuable assets as well.