Someone else posted that cap space this season isn't an issue due to pro-rated contracts, and Sturm is a UFA this season, so there really isn't a need to waive Sturm for financial reasons. That leaves roster spots, but the roster cap ends soon as well.
"In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened." - Vin Scully being clairvoyant in 1988.
The Los Angeles Kings - 2012 Stanley Cup Champions
We have to maintain compliance with the roster until AFTER the deadline. In my opinion, it could mean that Dean is looking to acquire someone for purely picks and futures and needs a spot open to receive him. Or we are receiving more players than we are giving up etc... It does give us more flexibility.
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
If not, then Dean needs room to take on $5MM+ worth of contract(s).
That's not how the cap works. We should be able to fit just about anyone onto our team since the cap is pro-rated. For example, lets say we had ~$3mm in cap room throughout the year. For arguments sake, lets say we make the trade 75% of the way through the year. We would only need to pay for 25% of that traded players cap hit. Therefore, a $12 million annual cap hit X 25% (pro-rated) equals $3mm annual cap hit.
In reality, we have had less than $3mm in cap space throughout the year and we are not 75% of the way through the year, but you get the point. This is also overly simplified, but the point remains that cap room for this year is a non-issue.
I'll take my shot at rumor mongering (where were they on Sturm being waived?). Tampa scouts at last nights game, Lecavalier plays on Tampa, he has a huge contract, Tampa looking for a #1 goalie going forward with Rolo UFA after the season-Vinny to LA (T4) for a package that includes Bernier.
If you were Vinny and were playing in Florida (0% state income tax) would you waive your NTC to come to CA with its 10%+ tax?
Didn't Parse have a set back? He wouldn't be ready to fill in for a while, so it's not him.
And if it was Loktionov, why even send him down? Did they just wanna see if Sturm was good enough to play, see last night he wasn't, and now want to bring Loktionov back up? It's not like Sturm played bad, and Murray/Lombardi talked about how Loktionov wasn't playing "heayy" enough and needed to be in the AHL some more to get better off the puck.
Not a shot in hell this happens. Kings have no reason to acquire another center unless it's a rental and includes on of our current rostered centers going the other way. Plus, if we are trading for someone with a monster contract, it's going to be someone who is actually in the prime of their career and not past it. This trade just doesn't make sense on any level for the Kings
I was rumor mongering, it doesn't have to make sense in any way, just connect the dots and throw on the wall (T5).
My money is on Vanek (new owner trying to make a splash) or Gagne (DL Philly connection).
So the Kovalev to Pitt trade put the kabosh in the Michalek to LA/pitt rumors?
The only reason i can see for Sturm to be on waivers is a trade coming that has the Kings getting back one more roster player than they are giving up, or DL thinks Loktionov is a better option than Sturm at this point.