Pretty easy no from Tampa, that's a pretty big downgrade for 700k

They trade Byron afterwards
See my other ACGM I did minutes before this one

Did you miss the part where the value is bad for Tampa in the first place?

Lol imagine offering a team a player and saying “you can just trade him after”

Did you miss the part where Tampa will eventually have to make a trade with bad value for them?
Stop acting like a smartass buddy

Lol imagine not knowing about 3 way trades.
Clueless, you are.

Imagine thinking that fixing Tampa's issues involves them taking $4.65 mil in exchange for $4.5 mil. YAYYYY!!!! YOU FIXED THEM!!!!

Or...they could just retain on Gourde and send him somewhere else, without then having to pay to dump someone else (Byron).

Biased, and blinded by your bleu, rouge et blanc glasses, you are.

Tampa might not have much choice on Gourde's destination since he has a NTC. Strictly a Gourde for Byron trade might be "fair" for both teams
Seems like an overpayment for Larsson. And if Backes is try on LTIR for the season, his inclusion in any trade is meaningless. Why do folks keep on including LTIR in trades?

Ok, where is your 3 way trade?

Because even if they are on LTIR and don't count against the cap, I think teams do still have to pay the players. Some teams would prefer to use the money on players that actually bring something to the roster.

Imagine not knowing about trade clauses. Gourde would certainly waive for the Habs. Byron has no trade clause and would be easier to trade at 2.8M than Gourde at 5.17M with a trade clause. Stop being a smartass and gtfo CF if you can't figure anything.

Backes never finished the season on LTIR...so certainly he looks like he is medically fit and therefore a cap hit. Insurance pays for most or all of a players salary, so the trading of LTIR players almost meaningless in all cases.

"Lol imagine not knowing about 3 way trades. Clueless, you are."

-First, if you'd like to have a real conversation, don't be a d1ck.
-Second, if you're just going to say "Um...it's a 3 way trade, but I'm not actually going to put the effort into making it a 3 way trade, you have to imagine it in your head!", it's probably not going to end well for you.
-Third, I'm not really sure how you got "Imagine not knowing anything about trade clauses" out of me telling you that Tampa adding cap to get rid of Gourde is dumb? Yes, Gourde may well waive for Montreal, but Tampa also has 7 other teams that they could deal him to, if that was how they chose to deal with their situation.

Finally, if you're going to spout off about how much more you know than everyone, it looks bad if you turn around and start saying things like "I think teams do still have to pay the players. Some teams would prefer to use the money on players that actually bring something to the roster.". The vast majority of contracts in the NHL, especially the large ones, are insured to protect the teams in situations like this. For instance, Ryan Kesler's contract is over 80% insured.

I wasn't being a d1ck I was just using the same kind of answers I got from Hidalgo.
You can't post a effing ACGM without being laughed at or being disrespected.
This is bs

I'm not @hidalgo...

Also, sure you can. Sure, there will typically be some anti-Leafs or anti-Habs folks out there, which should just be taken with a grain of salt, but if you actually put effort into it, like say-"Here's the actual 3 way trade", instead of "They can just flip him", it's a little easier. It's all good, man. I just don't see why a team would take on cap to then assume they can move it without a problem.

Wasn’t being disrespectful, just having a chuckle at the thought of saying that to a GM. But I just don’t think that trade is fair even as a 3 way move. Tampa is giving up the better player while taking back a worse contract. If they wanted to move gourde, which doesn’t seem apparent, they’d just want the money out completely,