1 million retained still makes Gallagher a bad trade target.

PASS

I highly doubt that montreal trades gallagher.

2nd time I see that NYR trade. First on twitter on a non troll guy and now here. Hmmmm. Definitely interesting for both sides but not sure if NYR are going to be cheap like they usually do.

First two trades seem reasonable. But asking LA to take on 9m in cap and give up assets too, no LA spends 9m better than Gallagher and Edmundson.

Apparently LA is looking into trading Dustin Brown here is your cap space.

LA isn't DREAMING of trading Dustin Brown out of need. And @palhal's comment wasn't about cap space -- he's saying that it makes more sense for us to use that $9 million to sign free agents.

LA will never trade Dustin Brown unless he specifically asks to be traded. In that situation, Brown will be able to pick his destination, and the Kings will essentially give him away for future considerations, much like when Iginla was traded from Colorado to LA several years ago. However, Brown has said on multiple occasions that he plans on retiring as a King, so that's very unlikely.

Dennis Bernstein and Dave Pagnotta were talking about Dustin Brown on one of their previous podcasts. It doesn't look like Brown is going to be extended. If you don't plan on keeping him trade him. Send him to Pittsburgh join Carter and Boyle. Who knows get a couple picks in return or a prospect.

Like I said, Brown is not going anywhere unless it's his decision. You're not going to alienate the longest tenured player in franchise history and only player to Captain the team to a Stanley Cup for a "couple picks or a prospect." If he's going to hang them up this summer, then he gets to do so playing all of his games with the Kings.

If Brown isn't ready to retire yet, there a one-year contract waiting for him. It won't be a lucrative contract, and there will be the understanding that he'll likely be a bottom six player and even a healthy scratch sometimes, but if he wants to come back, there's a spot for him.

Tons of futures for crap cap and rentals. Easy

The Kings aren't a heartless bean-counting operation just yet, so we won't be trading a franchise cornerstone for a couple of picks or a prospect. We wouldn't do that even if we were a haplessly desperate franchise like Arizona or Buffalo. If someone calls about Kopitar, Brown, Doughty or Quick, we'll listen and relay the offer to the player and his agent, and it will be their determination to move or not. I think that's part -- if a very small part -- of the reason Philip Danault signed with us, and that corporate ethos is going to continue. Blake and other members of the front office say stuff like that all the time. I'm willing to take them at their word. Of course, I'm a naif of only 74 years' experience.

That's debatable.
Signing free agents carries risk as well and you're more likely to end up overpaying or missing out on a player. You're also limited to players in the free agency pool.

At least with a trade you have contract certainty and know you are getting the player. You can also hand pick players to fit your needs instead of being limited to the best option available that year. (*Ahem*, Savard.)

Both are valid ways to use cap space, but free agency is normally the less efficient option unless you are getting the player you want at the price you want and you don't always get to control that.

You've overlooked the main point -- that we're not talking about free agents or unknown players being traded; the players being traded for, instead of free agent comparables, are Gallagher and Edmundson. Spending $9 million on near-flops isn't worse than spending it on them.

We did pretty well with the two free-agent signings we made last summer. I'll take the $9 million and spend it the same way this time rather than on Gallagher and Edmundson.