Gomez sent home, he’ll be bought out


AUDIO: Marc Bergevin news briefing

BREAKING: Scott Gomez sent home, where he will remain for the season. He’ll be fully paid but if Canadiens want to buy him out at season’s end, which they will, they can’t afford the risk of him being injured.

Pat Hickey quick hit:

Scott Gomez’s days as a Canadien are over.

General  manager Marc Bergevin announced Sunday morning in Brossard on Day One of the team’s training camp that Gomez was being sent home and would be bought out in the summer.

“We felt this was the best decision for the good of the team,” said Bergevin. He added that the Canadiens need to clear out cap space going forward and the deal will remove Gomez’s $7.357 million from the books for the 2013-14 season. The Canadiens will have to pay Gomez $5.5 million not to play this season and then will pay him two-thirds of the $4.5 million he’s scheduled to make next season.

Bergevin said the Canadiens couldn’t afford to have Gomez hurt because the new collective bargaining agreement  doesn’t allow teams to buy out injured players.

Bergevin said the decision on Gomez was made after he saw the final draft of the CBA at 11 p.m. Saturday and he met with Gomez at 7:30 a.m. Sunday at the Bell Sports Complex in Brossard. Bergevin said Gomez was “professional” when he was given the news.

Gomez was considered a prime candidate for one of two compliance buyouts permitted in the new CBA but as recently as last week Bergevin said Gomez was part of the team.

Early results from an online hockeyinsideout.com poll question, suggest fans believe Bergevin made the the right call with Gomez. More than 85 per cent of the nearly 250 people who had cast their vote by mid-day Sunday supported the general manager’s decision.

The decision opens a spot for a forward on the Canadiens’ roster.

Bergevin also said contract negotiations continue on a new contract for defenceman P.K. Subban, who remains in Toronto. Bergevin travelled to Toronto Saturday for face-to-face talks with Subban and agent Don Meehan.

“We exchanged proposals and counter-proposals but there was no agreement,” said Bergevin. He said he had no plans to trade the restricted free agent.

The Canadiens opened camp in Brossard at 10 a.m. Sunday with 23 players. Missing were Tomas Plekanec  and Mike Commodore (day-to-day) and Petteri Nokelainen, who is a few weeks away from a return.

With the 119-day National Hockey League lockout officially over, the Canadiens kick off their training camp at 10 a.m. Sunday morning.

Twenty-seven players are taking part in the camp at the team’s practice facility in Brossard, on Montreal’s South Shore.

Missing from the list of 27 players is Canadiens defenceman P.K. Subban, who is a restricted free agent and remains unsigned. Canadiens general manager Marc Bergevin said last Monday that it was his intention to sign Subban before camp. Talks between the team and Subban’s agent Don Meehan have been ongoing. Subban led the team in ice time last season.

The Hamilton Bulldogs players invited to camp are forwards Brendan Gallagher and Gabriel Dumont and defencemen Jarred Tinordi and Mike Commodore. Alex Galchenyuk, 18, the Canadiens first-round draft pick last June, is the youngest prospect at camp.

The Canadiens released their schedule today. They’ll face the Toronto Maple Leafs on Saturday at the Bell Centre to open the season.  They’ll end the 48-game season playing the Leafs on April 27 in Toronto. You can see the schedule by clicking here:

Canadiens head coach Michel Therrien will be available to the media later today.


  1. Habs64 says:

    Great to see cancer Gomez gone!!

  2. HUDSONHAB says:

    Well Bach on this sight again. I have already remember why I love and hate posts here. Optimism should be the talk going into a new year but pessimist rule the scriptures.
    Mixed feelings about Gomez as always but it is time to clear the cap.

  3. SmartDog says:

    This more than any other move gives me confidence the team is on the right track, in Molson, and in Bergevin.

    It flies in the face of the “everybody gets a clean slate” BS. It’s logical but costly. And that’s why it’s good. No way Scott is part of the team’s future, send him home, write the cheques you have to write anyway, and build a TEAM with no freeloaders.

    Listen to the Smart Dog. He knows his poop!

    • helluva habs fan says:

      I’m guessing it was a difficult decision for MB to make, i believe it goes against his grain. But the reality of the situation is: cap’s going down, how do we solve that problem? Embarassing veteran players is just one example of the fallout from the lockout and the new CBA.

    • New says:

      If you think back to last season Gomez had told the press he was coming back better than ever. Right from camp he was horrid, worse than the year before. Gauthier canned his coach at practice and had no replacement in the wings. A terrible season. At the end of Feb 2012 they couldn’t (rumored) move Gomez because Gomez nixed the deal. Gomez’ minutes dropped to 9 and 5 before he got an eye injury. He came back from that eye injury with a point in 3 games playing about 16 minutes and then got a concussion that lasted past the buyout period. Five games before the end of the season, when it was apparent there was no way to move Gomez until next season they fired Gauthier without a replacement and Bob went too. Totaled in 4 separate injury periods Gomez missed 44 games last season.

      All to say that Bergevin was smart to remove Gomez before he put a foot onto the ice. Everybody else who didn’t get rid of him lost their jobs and Gomez neither played hockey at the NHL level last season nor showed an ability to stand the rigors of playing at the NHL level. Was he supposed to pay Gomez, based on his history, for half the season but to only play 20 games and come up injured when the amnesty buyouts happened? Then explain to fans and players that such and such didn’t get a chance to gain experience because Gomez was being carried? Very smart move on the new management’s part. They were the third worst team in the NHL with Gomez, they can’t do much worse without him.

      Now Scott can prove them all wrong and find a way back.

  4. Say Ash says:

    Glad to hear darche got an invite from nj, how he finds work

  5. haloracer18 says:

    Once again tsn censored my comments. Gomez paid millions and millions to NOT play hockey. What’s new? If that doesn’t prove to everyone that contract law is a joke, I don’t know what can. It is ridiculous enough that they are paid anything more than $100k, considering that they are only paid to play a game and their actual time on the ice amounts to 2 days a year. Let some children see them play for 50 cents a seat. All of this because corporations see contracts as sacrosanct – it makes me barf. Yes contracts are practical for putting pressure on workers to get a certain job done, however even that part I disagree with because a person would do a better job anyway if that pressure was coming from within himself. We don’t need artificial constructs to replace common values.

    • commandant says:

      If you lower the contracts… you don’t end up with lower ticket prices. You just make more profits for the owners of the team.

      Ticket prices are set by supply/demand… not by player contracts.

      Go Habs Go!
      Check out Top Shelf Prospects, my Team by Team prospect reports

      • haloracer18 says:

        It’s awfully misleading to say that ticket prices are set by supply and demand. There are things like barriers to entry to start a new league, trade secrets, marketing talent, and of course the political agenda of the day that all play large roles in ticket prices. Unfortunately politics is not a legitimate institution. It’s an artificial institution that serves a purpose to sustain and grow its power over people. And corporations are also artificial institutions under the political umbrella that people use to hide from accountability. Make no mistake the NHL is a political tool, and the structure of the organization is entirely politically driven. Yes, if people are willing to pay the price, they will continue to increase it, but what I’m for is to allow children to buy tickets over adults, because when I was growing up in the 80’s it was getting hard to go to games at the forum, and i only saw a few games. In short, to hell with politics, let people who we want to benefit from something benefit.

  6. 100HABS says:

    After the 2012 season was over, Jacques Martin was on L’antichambre and was asked what he would do to improve this team (remember JM used to be a GM).
    His answer: “addition par soustraction” meaning they should get rid of Gomez. These were pretty powerful words from someone who knew the team and the room intimately.

    Seems MB agreed…

    • durocher says:

      Michael Scott: Dwight Schrute has left this company.
      Andy Bernard: Addition by subtraction.
      Michael Scott: What does that even mean? That is impossible.
      Andy Bernard: Mmmm. Yeah, you’re right.

    • Loonie says:

      And wasn’t the locker room divided over the style of play under Martin? I believe Gomez and Cammalleri were in the “we should attack more” camp and that Gill, Gorges and Gionta had to straighten them out.

      If I remember correctly.

  7. durocher says:

    MB had to get Gainey’s blunder, one of the worst decisions in Canadiens’ history, off the books.

  8. punkster says:


    Everybody’s high on compensation.
    Everybody’s trying to tell me what’s right for the team.
    Hockey experts tried to bore me with a sermon
    But it’s plain to see that they simply can’t agree.

    Sorry Scotty for your acquisition.
    But I think we’ve got it, got the strength to carry on.
    We need the cap space and a quick decision
    Now it’s up to MB, and we know what it will be.

    He’s Gone Oh I, Oh I’d
    better learn how to face it
    He’s Gone Oh I, Oh I’d
    pay the devil to replace him
    He’s Gone – pass the bong.

    ***Subbang Baby!!!***

  9. 100HABS says:

    Wonder how his good buddy Captain Gionta will react to this…

  10. rhino514 says:

    I am in favour of this buy-out, but I think this situation presents a loophole which should be closed and should have been addressed in the negotiations. Any team who is set on buying out a player is going to sit the player an entire season and I think this is unfair to both the team and the player.
    I wasn´t optimistic about gomez regaining his form. But if he is still on the team and you are paying his contract anyway, why not give him a chance to play even if it´s only in certain situations where he can be helpful. Having Gomez as the fourth centre and possibly the second unit of the PP and squeezing in shifts to rest other players would have been a luxury within the context of this bad situation. He´s also not bad to have around come playoff time.
    I just think it´s too extreme that teams are pretty much forced to sit a player in this situation for an entire season for fear of them coming down with a serious injury. There should be some type of provision where players with injuries can still be bought out, not sure how it could be done but i´m sure it could be negotiated in some commonsensical way.

    • Mike D says:

      I mentioned earlier today that perhaps teams could have been given an opportunity to ‘proclaim’ a player they wish to buyout. The team would then be forced to do so in the summer, even if the player played well, but they would also be allowed to follow through with the buyout if the player got hurt.

      That way the player gets to play and try to increase his appeal to other teams, and neither the team or player gets penalized should an injury occur.

      – Honestly yours
      Twitter: @de_benny

      • Loonie says:

        A very good idea in my opinion. Only problem is that it might cast a dark cloud over the head of the team collectively.

        • Mike D says:

          Agreed, that’s entirely possible. It’s not a perfect idea by any stretch, but I believe it’s better than what currently exists.

          – Honestly yours
          Twitter: @de_benny

          • Loonie says:

            For sure. The designated player would feel awful, and his teammates would feel awful for him in all likelihood but it would serve the interests of the team.

  11. Habilis says:

    Top 2 trends on twitter as of this minute:

    1. #NFL
    2. Scott Gomez

    Dude hasn’t gotten this much press since he won the Calder.

  12. Stevie.Ray says:

    Edmonton and Detroit looking for a defenceman. Detroit is the only team I think could take Kaberle and squeeze every drop off talent out of him, and Edmonton is the only team i think is dumb enough to trade for Kaberle

  13. Bun E. Laroque says:

    I can’t help feeling sorry for the guy. If it wasn’t for the absurd contract he’d have a chance at something of a comeback this year. Not with the Habs of course but with someone. He’s only 33. I can’t believe that someone who was once such a dominant player in this league is finished at such a young age. Obviously it didn’t work out in Montreal but I don’t think that was because of his attitude or a lack of effort. I still remember when he would skate rings around the Habs when he was in New Jersey. Oh well.

  14. christophor says:

    Tom, I enjoy your opinions but can’t say I see your reasoning.

    (1) LTIR is no reason to ignore the possibility that Gomez is injured next summer. It’s highly unlikely that he’d be injured through all of 13/14, and so his coming off LTIR mid-13/14 would mess things up badly. Of all the injuries that happen, I doubt 1% require a calendar year rehab. Really bad gambling there.

    (2) Gauthier didn’t have an amnesty buyout option so his and Bergevin’s situations are entirely different economically. Even if we don’t consider this, if the whole Habs cast were to stick around next year, there would be a far bigger capspace problem than Gauthier ever had to deal with.

    I really don’t see how Bergevin’s options in the summer were at all close to resembling his options today. Two key, related CBA developments changed everything: amnesty buyouts and substantially reduced capspace for next year. That’s what this is about.

    Edit: Actually this is ENTIRELY about the substantially reduced cap limit next year, since the amnesty buyouts are precisely intended to help teams deal with that adjustment. If there could be an illustration to explain why the amnesty buyouts are needed to cope with the 13/14 cap, Gomez would probably be the perfect choice.

    **So I really don’t see how Tom, Chris, and maybe a few others see this as classless. Unless you have a principled problem with the reduced cap/amnesty buyout structure – the necessity of which Gomez is a perfect example – then I don’t see where there’s room to make this argument.

    • Loonie says:

      Thanks Christophr.

      I’m not on the same page with you on your second point. Not sure what you’re disagreeing with. If it’s the buyout. I’m in favour of it.

      • christophor says:

        Right, probably crunched in another argument along with yours. Sry.

        The post was much longer than necessary anyway. The only real point that should have been directed to you is that Gomez is the prime example of why amnesty buyouts are needed… and that’s a new issue, not one Gauthier had to deal with and not one Bergevin had to deal with in the summer.

        • Loonie says:

          That’s fair but again I don’t have an issue with the buyout at all. I welcome it.

          My ridiculously long argument over the past two pages has been that in my opinion Bergevin knew he wasn’t going to have Gomez on the team for some time and deceived Gomez into thinking the opposite for whatever reason.

          I might be wrong, plenty of people seem to think so and I don’t blame them. But if I’m correct and this decision was made in the summer there was no reason to deceive Gomez. And if that’s the case I believe the way that it was handled was classless.

          All ifs. No reason for people to get all bent out of shape.

          • Propwash says:

            In my view, Bergevin had his hands tied until the new CBA was over with and done anyway.

            “Access Forbidden” gettin’ ya down?
            Hold down Shift while clicking refresh.

          • mfDx says:

            Players had no access to coaches , management and facilities during the lockout.
            Bergevin could not conduct ANY business with Gomez until yesterday aft.

            Sent from my CHphone

          • Loonie says:


            They did until the lockout. I don’t believe this decision was made during the lockout or last night.

            That’s my opinion.

          • christophor says:

            Fair enough and definitely no reason to be upset. I just don’t think a decision was made on Gomez until the CBA details – esp. 13/14 cap limit/floor – were set in stone. For example, if the cap floor weren’t lowered/frozen, there might still be a chance at Gomez resurrecting his career and moving on somewhere else for a low pick… and this would be a more attractive option without an amnesty buyout. That was Gauthier’s reasoning, I bet.

    • Stevie.Ray says:

      The lockout in general is classless

  15. 24 Cups says:

    “New York Rangers defenseman Wade Redden, who’s been exiled to Hartford of the AHL since 2010, was given permission to speak with other teams about a potential trade, according to the New York Post’s Larry Brooks. If that fails, Redden would join Gomez as a compliance buyout this summer.” (Puck Daddy)

  16. Stevie.Ray says:

    With Gomez bought out it will help the Habs get under the cap next year, especially with Subban being signed soon, and Pacioretty’s extension to begin.
    With DD needing a new contract next year, if by the trade deadline it is apparent Galchenyuk can handle the NHL (most likely on the wing if he makes the team), would you trade DD (if his value is high), move Galchenyuk to second line center, buyout Kabs or Bourque, and make a major move through free agency (Perry)?

    It would help settle log jam of centers, we could get a high prospect or pick in trade, and go after whatever key piece we need in free agency?

    I’m probably looking too far ahead

    • Loonie says:

      Plekanec, Markov and Gionta are the obvious trade candidates. At least one will be moved this coming off-season because Galchenyuk will very likely be a full time NHLer next year at the latest.

      • rhino514 says:

        Plekanec will definitely not be moved unless someone waaay overpays.

        • Loonie says:

          That’s your opinion. He and Gionta are both expendable with the addition of Galchenyuk.

          • rhino514 says:

            They would let Eller or Desharnais go before Pleks. Plekanec is one of the most underrated centres in the entire league.
            I´ll edit my previous statement by saying that they would probably not trade Plekanec EVEN if someone were to overpay.

          • Loonie says:

            Eller and Desharnais don’t clear enough cap money to help the team financially in the future.

            Markov, Gionta and Plekanec remain the only logical choices going into next season. Maybe Desharnais because he’s due for a big raise but that might be a PR nightmare for Bergevin. Guess we’ll see if he has the stones to follow through on a move like that.

          • rhino514 says:

            I would argue that despite Pleks having the bigger contract, he is probably worth more than his contract and is a bargain. When he signed it was pretty much consensus that he could have gotten up to a million per season elswhere.
            Would you trade Galchenyuk the day he signs for 7 million a year just because it clears cap space?
            A team is built around core players. These core players are considered core because they are very hard to replace. you simply don´t let players like that go, unless they no longer want to play for you.
            Price, subban, Pacioretty, and likeley someday Galchenyuk are the future core of the team.
            but I would argue that plekanec is also a core player and is still going to be around for a while. He is one of the best two way centres int he league; he´s probably not a great top three centre, but he´s one of the best top six in the league. And he can shut people down if you need him to, kill penalties, AND help on the PP. all the while never complaining who he plays with and always putting the team first. He´s also grown and become a very consistent player since his last off year a few seasons ago. You simply don´t let players like that go.
            If Eller has a monster year, then I agree a difficult situation exists and one must consider even the least likely scenarios. But that day has not arrived and we have no ide if/when it will.
            DD is great but he is a smurf and his lack of size puts him at a disadvantage when forechecking other centres. He will either adapt succesfuly to the wing, or either Eller will get traded, or he will have to go. Those are the three possibilities. Pleks does not enter into any of them.

    • tagomagotexas says:


    • habsnyc says:

      Yes, trade him and trade Plekanec. And buyout Bourque or Kaberle. If this team is being built around Price then I would rather spend free agent dollars on a defenseman than a forward. Plus maybe Cole retires and the team will be much younger. There will be movement this offseason.

      Blue, blanc et rouge. Red and White for Canada. Blue for Smurfs.

      • Stevie.Ray says:

        Thats alot of moves. Our top 6 needs to be rebuilt I’ll give you that, but I don’t think it can be done in one fell swoop. Gally and Pac are key to our future top 6. Hopefully one of our prospects can step up within the next couple seasons. Pleks would be a nice solid vet. And then we finish it up with somebody off FA.

        • habsnyc says:

          Bourque is not top six. Cole is out of our control. You could be right that trading two centers is overkill. I guess trading either of them would probably be sufficient. Though, this scenario hinges on both DD and Galchenyuk thriving in the NHL this season, which I grant you is not assured.

          Blue, blanc et rouge. Red and White for Canada. Blue for Smurfs.

    • naweed235 says:

      honestly, whoever suggests trading DD must be outta their minds… The kid is a clutch player who has dominated at every level he has played (Which is more than can be said for 99% of our prospects) not to mention he is dirt cheap for the time being.
      He has better numbers than Martin St-Louis at the same age and is one of our few French speaking players which seems to be a huge deal in this city.
      DD is the real deal and trading him would be a huge, HUGE mistake

      • Stevie.Ray says:

        Well, we have four centers. Eller looks good on the third line, Pleks is always good and one of the better two way centers in the league, and Gally is the future. DD is the odd man out. You can make the argument that Gally can stay on the wing, but that leaves us still a little small down the middle (although DD does play bigger than he is). Plus, we don’t know how much DD is going to want with his new contract, and I would rather spend that money on a more pertinent need.

      • rhino514 says:

        I love Desharnais. He´s still not as valuable as Plekanec.
        Give him cole and pacioretty last year and he would´ve outscored DD by a mile. He still managed to stay within 10 points of him while playing with no one, basically. Miraculous.

        • Stevie.Ray says:

          I think I read a stat that said Pleks took close to 75%of Habs defensive zone faceoffs. Or maybe 75% of his faceoffs were in the defensive zone. My point is Pleks was used mainly in a defensive role and he put up good points

    • jhab93 says:

      well id rather have the six foot galchenyuk in centre then DD.

      Thats the way the cookie crumbles

      • rhino514 says:

        I´m not a fan of playing players out of position but I say play DD on LW and see if he can do it. He has a lot of talent and just may be able to do it. If he does, the club isn´t automatically obliged to ditch him next year.
        By the way, I don´t think Eller has proven anything so far. People are suggesting he is about to have a monster year, but we simply don´t know if this is true.
        The club has no one on LW besides Pacioretty. As it is it looks like they are going to have to play Moen on the third line, who I like, but is sub par as a third liner (though a good fill in for short periods, in case of injuries) . DD is worth a try as a top six left wing for now.

  17. naweed235 says:

    so Del Zotto who is a fair comparison to Subban just signed a 2 yr, 2.55$ per yr contract with the Rangers. Now explain to me how some people think it’s a good idea to pay Subban $5-6M long term?

    • habsnyc says:

      For this organization, signing long term contracts is more unsafe than running with scissors. Everything over two years should require a province wide referendum.

      Blue, blanc et rouge. Red and White for Canada. Blue for Smurfs.

    • Mike D says:

      Long term deal would include some UFA years, where assuming he continues to develop, he would be paid more than 5-6mil. Getting a long term deal now is a balance of compromise. He gets paid more than he’s worth now, but likely less than he’s worth later. PK get’s the peace of mind of having at least one big contract in his career which makes him financially set for the rest of his life, even if he gets hurt or his career/play goes downhill.

      I’d prefer he take a ‘bridge’ contract like Del Zotto for 2 years, but it’s up to PK if he wants to or not. Price, Pacs, Pleks, and Gorges all did it. We’ll see if PK does too.

      – Honestly yours
      Twitter: @de_benny

    • habstrinifan says:

      Definitely affects Subban’s negotiations to HABS favour. Are you sure this is DelZotto’s terms…seems like he came out pretty badly.

      • naweed235 says:

        ya that’s what RDS is reporting on their site… It did seem a little low to me too to be honest. But then again it’s the bridge type of contract that most young players in that situation get, similar to Price’s contract

      • Mike D says:

        It’s been confirmed that those are Del Zotto’s term. 2.55mil per season I believe – 2 year deal.

        – Honestly yours
        Twitter: @de_benny

  18. The Dude says:

    Is G-love’s money against the cap? Jeese that could of gone to P.K.,Dam you Rangers.Would of loved to hear Berkshire’s spin doctoring on this. The charts are wrong 🙂

  19. piper says:

    I think he should have taken the chance with Gomez in hopes that he could have traded him to a team that needs to reach the floor. But I’m sure he made a few calls before he made the decision to send him home.

  20. 24 Cups says:

    “The Scott Gomez buyout: surest indication there is a God since Roy Cohn died of AIDS.” (Mike Boone/Facebook)

    The headmaster returns in six days. Word on the street is that he has been working out ever since the lockout began and is in better shape than Tomas Kaberle.

  21. Grumpyoldhab says:

    Sean Gordon of theglobeandmail.com explained it rather well. Gomez will be assigned to Hamilton (saving the Habs $900,0000 cap space and a roster spot). Gomez will not be reporting to Hamilton though.

  22. Shadows says:

    Well, didn’t see this coming. So much for my comment of cheering for Gomez xD

    Interesting move, and pretty wise on MBs part

  23. habsnyc says:

    Telling Gomez to remain at home is the most logical solution for Montreal. This is a move forced upon current management due to poor decisions by prior management and poor play by Gomez.

    Blue, blanc et rouge. Red and White for Canada. Blue for Smurfs.

  24. HardHabits says:

    Classless was trading McDonagh for Gomez.

  25. PrimeTime says:

    Watching MB presser sure is a welcome change from PG. The man shows respect for the organization and its fans. Hopefully the fans will follow his lead and rise above the bar set by typical Leaf fans.

    • alfieturcotte says:

      I detested Gauthier, but frankly a GM’s amiability is of little concern to me. I want to see results and thus far, not seen much from MB for me to be positive on him. Get our MVP signed (PK should have been priority, not overrated Price for way more than he deserves) already!

      • tagomagotexas says:

        It’s a little premature for anyone to judge MB’s “results” yet without a single game yet being played by the squad. Regarding the Price vs. Subban comparison, the simple truth is we don’t know enough about PK’s effect on the dressing room, his or his agent’s motivations or salary demands, and his current on-ice projections to make any kind of observation as to whether signing him or Price first was a good idea.

        Much like BG’s reign, results are judged in hindsight, and after games are played.

        • habstrinifan says:

          You had me until ‘effect on the dressing room’. I wish people would stop vilifying O.K on those grounds. Do you remember when Price was said to be indolent and unfocussed etc at practice. Guess not!

          • tagomagotexas says:

            of course! and i still have lingering doubts about price. my whole point is that we don’t know enough about the situation. it could very well be that pk has been holding out because he’s in a very favorable situation; i.e: lack of superstar defencemen on the canadiens d, huge market demand and possible offer sheets, popularity with the fans etc. all i was saying is the reasons behind signing (or not signing) pk so late may have nothing at all to do with MB.

  26. SmartDog says:


    Never to see Gomez again in a Habs uniform – the new CBA has done at least one good thing.
    Listen to the Smart Dog. He knows his poop!

  27. alfieturcotte says:

    I don’t follow this move – Gomez stays home, collects full salary, salary continues to county against the cap for 2013, and the upside is if he by chance gets hurt his $4.5MM does not count for 2014? Hmm, not worth it. I would play him or send him to Hamilton to get game shape ready in case we had some injuries. Either way, his salary counts.

    • Loonie says:

      They’re doing this because they can’t buy him out if he gets hurt badly.

      In which case they could use LTIR and have their insurance company pick up the tab.

      That end of it has been ignored.

    • Bill H says:

      I don’t think that is the way the new CBA works. He is being sent home so that he won’t be injured. If he is injured in Hamilton or wherever this year, then next year, his salary counts against the cap. This way, he won’t be injured, so he can be bought out in the off season and his salary will be off the salary cap.

  28. Chris says:

    I have a question.

    Is there anything stopping a team from using an amnesty buyout on an existing buyout contract?

    Basically, can you buyout a player and then choose to use the amnesty clause to remove the cap hit? I haven’t been able to find that information anywhere.

    • Loonie says:

      The compliance buyouts next season remove the cap hit entirely.

      • Chris says:

        But my question is whether you could use an amnesty buyout on an existing buyout.

        For example, could Montreal have bought Gomez this past summer and, given the new amnesty buyout provision, use one of their two to take Gomez buyout off their cap for however years it had remaining?

        • Loonie says:

          I can’t imagine a scenario where Fehr would have allowed that in the CBA.

          • Chris says:

            I can’t see any difference. The player is still bought out, so it does not affect player money in any way. It just means that the team can clear the cap hit off the books, which would allow them to spend more on salaries. This would be advantageous to the players, wouldn’t it?

        • habsnyc says:

          I don’t think a team can undo a prior buyout.

          But there is a very similar scenario where your question applies. If a team sends a player to the minors, then recalls him and he is claimed on re-entry – like what happened to Hainsey or to Avery – the team that waived him is still responsible for part of his salary. In theory they might want to buyout that player to remove the salary hit.

          Blue, blanc et rouge. Red and White for Canada. Blue for Smurfs.

    • Kooch7800 says:

      I think it is for only active roster players from my understanding when it was explained by the analysts. Not 100 percent on that though

      “Keep your stick on the Ice”

    • HabFab says:

      No buy outs until after season ends. PA felt that it would be unfair to those bought out now as they would be hard pressed to find employment until next season.
      Not sure if they considered this happening or felt too few would do it to be a concern.

  29. Grumpyoldhab says:

    Could someone explain how the roster numbers work. A couple (?) of years ago when the Habs told Laraque to stay home they had to finish the season short one roster spot. Any implications here?

    • Chris says:

      My understanding is that he remains on the roster, and therefore the Habs would have to go one player short for the rest of the season.

      The only way they could avoid that is by demoting him to Hamilton, in which case they have to pay half his salary if somebody scoops him, or arranging a loan agreement with a team in Europe. I just don’t know if that loophole was closed in this CBA.

      • Loonie says:

        No more re-entry waivers. So no more scooping a player up at half of his salary.

        • Chris says:

          Good catch…I didn’t see that provision.

          • Loonie says:

            Hey Chris I have something I’d like to run by you. You use Linkedin?

          • HabFab says:

            Also Gomez would count against the 50 man PRO roster but not the 23 man NHL roster.

          • Chris says:

            I do, but I prefer to maintain my anonymity as much as possible on public websites because of my profession.

          • Loonie says:

            I was going to request you send me a message so I could reply to you.

            Edit: No ill intentions here with all sincerity.

          • Chris says:

            No worries. I didn’t take it any other way.

            I’m just a bit careful about letting too much info out after a couple of ugly incidents a few years ago.

          • Loonie says:

            This is hockey related. I just want to get your opinion about something and it actually requires more trust in you on my part than the other way around.

            It’s proprietary and I’d rather not share it here publicly.

            If you’re open to a conversation about it feel free to send me a message. You know my name’s Tom Nickle. Belleville location. I’m not too hard to find.

  30. habsfan0 says:

    Habs to hit the ice at Brossard @ 10am but coach Michel Therrien promises players that they’ll be home in time to catch 1pm Falcons-Seahawks NFL kickoff.

    Leafs to hit ice at Mastercard Centre in Etobicoke @ 2:30pm but coach Randy Carlyle promises players that they’ll be home in time to catch 8pm Golden Globe telecast.

  31. db says:

    I’m glad to see Darche getting an invite to the Devils camp..

  32. 24 Cups says:

    Westgarth goes to Carolina, Darche to New Jersey and Del Zotto gets 5.1M for two years.

    • Loonie says:

      Bill Cowher’s son in law(Westgrath)

      • 24 Cups says:

        Why the change in identity, Tom?

        • Loonie says:

          Sorry for the delay Steve.

          I found that prior to my time away and near immediately when I returned I was consistently being attacked on a personal level for disagreeing with people on things.

          Didn’t want my name associated with that in Google searches. Not good for business.

          • 24 Cups says:

            Makes sense.

            Do you think the tone of your posts is an issue? As well, I wonder if all of us sometime get into tug of wars because we always think we (or our take on things) are right. I had a close friend point that out to me (in terms of our personal interaction, not Hab posts) and it gave me food for thought. I aslo think the lack of human contact on web interactions plays a part.

  33. GordC says:

    It’s a as simple as if Gomez stays we lose a good player with the cap going down next season .

  34. GordC says:

    Guys if they let him tryout and he gets hurt we’re screwed !!! This is a business and its a smart move going forward.

  35. JohnBellyful says:

    So, if Gomez is watching the Habs play the Leafs next Saturday and throws a beer at the TV and it bounces back and it hits him the cheek, knocking him over the side of the couch and sends him crashing through a glass topped table, opening up a huge gash, prompting him to dash to the other side of the room to phone 911 but he ends up tripping over the hassock and breaking his leg in three places, which surgeons say will never completely heal, does that mean the Canadiens won’t be able to buy him out next summer because of his hockey-related injury?
    I mean, injuries?

    • ZepFan2 says:

      LTIR, baby!!

      That leg never heals, right?

      Ka is a wheel.

      “Bring it back home to me baby”

      Bring it on Home

      • JohnBellyful says:

        But, then it’s the team that gets hurt, right? They take a cap hit? Is that the same as a financial concussion?

        • ZepFan2 says:

          Okay now I’m all confused. Who’s on first?

          Ka is a wheel.

          “Bring it back home to me baby”

          Bring it on Home

          • JohnBellyful says:

            See immediately below, kooch7800, and others further down, for an explanation, which I think i understand, at least I did when I first read it, which, mind you, was a while ago, and I’ve read other things since then, not here, but elsewhere, ’bout other stuff, but still ends up in the same place, where everything gets jumbled together, like a clothes dryer of the mind, where things get tossed around, heated up, and dried out, but smelling nice, and when it’s time to gather everything to put away in the drawers of your memory, there’s always something missing, like a sock or a fact, which is very puzzling because … where was I?

          • ZepFan2 says:

            Great, I go for a walk (where Gainey took Kovy) to contemplate all this gobble-de-gook and I come back thinking I’ve figured it out and here you go and fudge everything up. Mmm, fudge

            Umm, what was the question again?

            Ka is a wheel.

            “Bring it back home to me baby”

            Bring it on Home

  36. joeybarrie says:

    If he is injured his cap doesnt affect us.
    Once he isnt injured, then buy him out.
    It makes little sense to me to simply pay him and not use him.
    While he hasnt been producing.
    And how much would we save?
    Versus having a veteran to help out who has already been thru a lockout.
    Seems like we could have figured something better out.
    Send him to the AHL. I mean what are we really saving?
    Maybe its just the shock. I am very surprised.

    • twilighthours says:

      Joey you’ve missed a lot of subtleties of the new CBA.

    • Phil C says:

      If you look at the cap situation for next season and who needs to be signed, this decision will make much more sense to you.

    • tagomagotexas says:

      again, if he happens to be injured during the compliance buy-out phase next summer, his salary WILL count against the gap – and will be disastrous for signing our RFAs/UFAs next year.

      finally, we could replace his 2 goals with nearly anyone in the system. far better to provide a youngster with the position and the time to develop, and a great message to the team that performance is or is not rewarded.

    • Kooch7800 says:

      The cap drops to 60 next year and the Canadians will be tight against it. They can only buy out next summer and if he is hurt you are screwed cause you can’t buy them out. When they come of the original the cap kicks in and you will lose actual parts of your team. Makes true sense

      “Keep your stick on the Ice”

    • You may have something there! Perhaps someone should have maimed him at this morning’s practice?

  37. smiler2729 says:

    See ya Scott Gomez, wish you played better, good luck to you next season somewhere else, I don’t think it’ll be in the NHL…

    Jack Edwards is a clam.
    Gary Bettman is a bobblehead.

  38. GordC says:

    Smart move Bergevin !!! Gomez being the highest paid and worst player has been killing us !

    Looking forward to the new Habs era under Therien and Bergevin . Sign PK already ! 2 yr 6 million about right …

  39. Kooch7800 says:

    All business. It is a four month stretch that they couldn’t risk him getting hurt with the cap coming down. Nothing more than that.

    Scott can play next year on a new team.

    “Keep your stick on the Ice”

  40. The Habs will pay for this, literally!

  41. HardHabits says:

    Actually. I think the way the Habs handled this was completely classy. Players will not resent this. They will stand up and take note. The Habs are back. No more wimpy, gutless, politically correct messages moving forward. It’s all about winning. Nothing personal Scotty. It’s just business.

    • Ozmodiar says:

      business – Bergevin has a face to face meeting with Gomez and explains that, for business reasons, his services are no longer needed, thanks him for his services, and wishes him good luck.

      classless – the Habs slip a one-way Greyhound bus ticket to Alaska under his hotel door during the night.

  42. Habilis says:

    I see alot of people calling this move “classless”. I’m at a loss as to why anyone would think that. The circumstances surrounding Gomez only became clear with the new CBA so it’s not like they could have done this any earlier. Bergevin is simply playing the hand he’s dealt.

    • Kooch7800 says:

      People calling it classless don’t get it. They would be fuming if he played and got hurt and we lost players that are part of the future to fit under the cap

      “Keep your stick on the Ice”

      • Chris says:

        You might be surprised at what I “get”.

        I just simply disagree with you.

        • Kooch7800 says:

          Okay than why is it actually classless? It is basic business. Gomez still gets paid and the team can fit the rest of the players needed in the offseason under the cap.
          How would you handle it exactly
          “Keep your stick on the Ice”

          • Chris says:

            Because by doing it in this way, Gomez does not get the chance to resume his career elsewhere.

            Normally, once you buyout a player they are free to negotiate a contract elsewhere so they can continue to play.

            At 33 years old, missing an entire season is the type of thing that can end a player’s career. I will remove the classless label if the Canadiens administration does something to allow him to continue playing.

            If we expect players to honour contracts, there should be an onus on the franchise to honour that contract as well. The NHL cried bloody murder when Radulov left the Predators mid-contract even though he accepted that his NHL rights would remain with the Predators and he knew he would no longer receive that money.

            A contract is a two-way street. Gomez is getting his money, but he is not being given the opportunity to play hockey to work towards his next contract. That is what I do not like about this “business decision”. I will agree with everybody that it is a good hockey decision.

          • Mike D says:

            @ Chris

            Can’t fault the team that the amnesty buyout doesn’t kick in until next summer. I’m sure if there was a way to do it that would allow Scott to keep playing without putting the team at risk they would choose that option.

            As for the ‘ending his career’ sentiment, I believe Scott himself chose to do that a couple years ago. Again, no fault of the team.

            Obviously we will have to agree to disagree, but I can’t fathom how anyone can see this as a classless move by the Habs. I doubt very much Geoff Molson is happy to pay a guy 5.5mil to NOT play, but it was the best and safest decision for the betterment of the team.

            – Honestly yours
            Twitter: @de_benny

          • Kooch7800 says:

            He misses 3 months and can play next season wherever he wants. They are honoring the contract by paying it. Comes with the territory on garaunteed contacts. He cannot play anywhere cause of the injury risk. We are talkingbabout Jan to April. 3 months really and next year he can play anywhere he wants

            “Keep your stick on the Ice”

    • The Dude says:

      Classless is sucking the hockey out of the Habs with a 7 million per contract.

  43. Xsteve50 says:

    I have a question, what happens if by some unforseen reason, you go over the cap. A performance claus that someone over achieves. More shutout than humanly possible, or by some fluke, Bourque score 70 goals, something like that..What happens?

    • naweed235 says:

      If you are referring to player performance bonuses, I’m pretty sure they don’t count against the cap

    • Mike D says:

      There are penalties for going over the cap if a team does so. There are also penalties if a team is below the cap floor.
      Under the old CBA only Entry Level contracts and 35+ contracts could have bonuses though, and there was maximum limits on the bonuses too. I’m not sure if it’s the same under the new CBA.

      Even if a bonus-eligible player scored 200 goals there would still be a pre-defined amount of the bonus and salary cap hit.

      – Honestly yours
      Twitter: @de_benny

    • Habilis says:

      There are different penalties for a team if they violate the cap, depending on how they do it. If I remember right, going over just because of bonuses isn’t that bad, I think it’s just a big fine. If the team is found guilty of cap circumvention though, then they can lose draft picks (like the Devils did) or even be deducted regular season points in some cases.

      Of course that was all in the last CBA. I have no idea if there are any changes now.

  44. otter649 says:

    Was Gomez allowed to take his jersey with him or is that the so-called policy for traded players & not players being bought out in the future……lol

  45. CharlieHodgeFan says:

    I don’t buy the ‘classlessness’ analysis. Scott Gomez came to Montreal for camp. There was no CBA when he arrived. When there was a CBA, he got cut based on its provisions.
    He was fully aware this would happen. I have no cousins with the inside line or neighbours who skate with his relatives, but I do know Gomez is an intelligent guy. He did what he had to do under his contract (show up), and Bergevin did what he had to do under the newly signed CBA memorandum (cut him from the team). If Gomez was blindsided, then someone is secretly writing his dialogue for him. He seems quick-witted enough to me.
    If you want to be classless, consider a smart man like Gomez to be too stupid to understand the business he has worked in. Next we’ll be saying Brian Burke looked like a baby seal sleeping on the ice when the Leafs called him to the meeting.
    What no one knew in June is that we were going to watch a 48 game pantomime season. That, as well as the new CBA, has changed a lot of things.

  46. twilighthours says:

    Wow! Amazing, and wow. Gutsy move by Bergevin, but no doubt the team will be better giving his minutes to someone else – some kid who needs to the time to develop.

    Was it classless? I don’t really care. They probably could have told Gomer to stay home the minute they knew about the amnesty conditions (no injuries, etc). But maybe MB and crew were waiting to get a few more looks at who might crack the lineup and bump Gomer, or waiting on word from Noke’s injury. Or maybe Gomer showed up and acted like a d!ck. We might never know why this decision was made today.

    Classless? I can’t imagine for the life of me any other NHL player who would not understand why MTL made this move. They know that Gomez is a dog and not worth his paycheck. There’s no sympathy for him – he’s making the rest of them look bad. So by that standard, this is not a classless move at all.

    Wow! and awesome.

    • Loonie says:

      I’ve been saying they won’t like the way it was handled. The move is obviously the right one. I just don’t like that Gauthier made similar moves and was seen as classless and Bergevin gets gold stars all around.

      Great hockey ops move. Just don’t think it was handled appropriately.

    • Bill says:

      Chrisadiens used the word “classless”, and also “ruthless”. I can’t really agree although I do appreciate his kind nature.

      Gomez is still getting paid, and he’s only missing 48 games of hockey. At most he loses 1.5 million or so next year … unless he signs with somebody else, in which case he comes out ahead. So since he’s not being screwed in any real way – the Habs just don’t have a place for him on the team – it can’t be called classless.

      It’s not really ruthless either. There’s no real hardship to Gomez involved. Bergevin’s ruth is intact.

      You know what? The correct term for what is happening to Gomez is “being cut”. It happens at all levels of hockey … though it’s probably never happened to Gomez before. This is no more classless than cutting any other player. It’s just hockey.

      Full Breezer 4 Life

      • Xsteve50 says:

        agree…..except when it happened to my son…it hurt like hell…trust me…

      • Mike D says:

        I think it was Chris, not Chrisadiens, who stated it was classless.

        I too am surprised that some are calling it a classless move based solely on that Scott was led to believe recently he would be on the team and now he is not. I’m more so surprised that the sentiment is coming from posters who I consider (and still do) to be quite intelligent.

        I don’t see how any other alternatives would have been ‘classier’ considering how the new CBA changed things, or how it could have been handled any better.

        – Honestly yours
        Twitter: @de_benny

  47. Propwash says:

    As per usual, Gomez will be invisible on the ice…


    “Access Forbidden” gettin’ ya down?
    Hold down Shift while clicking refresh.

  48. habsfaninboston says:

    Wow! Just got back from church and read the news. I prayed Subban would be signed this morning but instead Gomer is gone. There is a God.

  49. Habs_4_ever says:

    Any news about what’s happening on the ice or what happened yesterday at the physicals?

    “Leave the gun, take the cannoli.”

  50. Loonie says:

    Okay. Please don’t take this the wrong way fellow fans. I’m looking for a logical answer.

    Did the old CBA prevent the Habs from paying Gomez to stay at home and not play at all?

    If the answer is no, and I was pretty familiar with the old CBA and believe that to be the case. Then Gomez could have and should have been told some time in July or August he wasn’t going to be on the team.

    Yes Bergevin had to wait to until the CBA was ratified to decide which WAY he was going to keep Gomez off of the ice, but it doesn’t change the fact that he wasn’t going to be on the ice for the Habs.

    This did NOT need to wait until this morning or last night. There was no reason to keep Gomez in the dark about his future with the team for this long of a period of time.

    Having said all of this, I’m not against this move. I think it’s great for the Habs, Bulldogs and the future of both teams and their players. But I don’t like the way it was handled one bit. Players around the league will notice how this was handled and won’t like it. Granted some won’t care, but some will.

    • CanadienBoy says:

      Watch as other teams will do the same and it was about time because Eller did much better at center last year then the gomer ,who took is place when coming back

    • canada4l says:

      Under the old CBA and under the new CBA, Gomez still counts against the cap even if he is just staying at home not playing. The reason they are doing this now is because they don’t want him to get hurt and then not be able to buy him out in the off season. Before this new CBA was done, they did not have the option to buy him out with no cap hit.

    • HabFab says:

      Me thinks it is as simple as they waited to see the new CBA before making a decision. In all situations a wise decision.

    • twilighthours says:

      See above. We will never know why the move was delayed until today. There could have been many reasons to do so.

      • Loonie says:

        That’s fair enough but telling Gomez he’s in their plans for this season less than a week before camps open only to send him home isn’t right in my opinion. Maybe I’m rushing to judgement but I suspect they had several scenarios planned well ahead of time to keep him off of the team this season or next.

    • Habilis says:

      You’re right about the old CBA, there was nothing preventing the Habs from sending Gomez home.

      What you’re ignoring, however, is the new compliance buyout rules. The club cannot buy out an injured player so sending Gomez home is the only way to assure that he can be bought out in the summer.

      Personally, I think it’s not only the right call, but the only call Bergevin could make.

      • Loonie says:

        I’m not ignoring that aspect of it at all. My issue is them misleading him about their plans for him.

        • Ozmodiar says:

          Why in the heck would they buy him out under the old CBA if there were cap consequences instead of waiting to see if the new CBA included amnesty buyouts?

          • Loonie says:

            I’m not saying they should have bought him out. I’m saying they knew well before today that he wouldn’t be on the team this season or next and could have told him when they decided.

        • Habilis says:

          But they buyout only came about with the new CBA, how could they have known what they were going to do before that happened?

  51. Price07 says:

    First, to all those who thought Gomez wouldn’t be bought out (can’t believe these people exist): told you so.

    Now, as for classy or not… the habs did exactly what they had to. When Gomez signed his contract the upside was the money and the downside was a heavy cap hit that he had to the responsibility to deal with. The guy is still getting paid, but the habs are making sure they can buy him out without a hitch this summer. With the cap decreasing by 6 million next year you absolutely can not afford to have a player taking up 7.5 million on the cap and not producing anywhere near that value.

    As for giving him a chance…thats what the last TWO seasons were for. After his 38 point performance two years ago people (including me) were saying well obviously he’ll be better this year because how can he be worse? Surely enough, he managed to be worse. He had 4th line type point totals for all-star money. He could still have been useful (in some way) but in a cap world it simply can’t happen.

    Gomez (and all other NHLers) should consider themselves lucky that they have guaranteed contracts because in the real world if you don’t produce you get fired. Gomez has been fired but will continue to be paid…he’s still coming out okay so no sympathy there.

    Should he have said no to a big contract? Maybe not, but he had to keep in mind that if he didn’t perform (which he clearly didn’t) he would be asked to leave. If he wanted to ensure he stayed in the NHL he should have said no thanks to that deal. All actions have consequences.

  52. Bill says:

    Who’s our whipping boy now? Bourque? Kaberle?

    No wait … Price. This is still HIO, haha.

    Not for me, though, I’m a convert. Price is the real thing.

    Full Breezer 4 Life

  53. Mr. Biter says:

    Just wondering if the great Jack Todd will have Joe Flacco a zero again this week.

    Mr. Biter
    No Guts No Glory

  54. Mothstoflame says:

    I really liked G Love…..

    Now, im wondering with our luck with injuries if Gomez pulls a theodore or anderson and gets hurt not playing. He does like to fish alot. Would getting hurt not playing affect the buyout?

    • Stevie.Ray says:

      Think it’s only hockey related injuries that would prevent a buyout

    • likehoy says:

      if he gets hurt not playing hockey.. there’s probably contract stipulations that can allow the Habs to terminate his contract… could be even more advantageous.

      There’s probably a list of coverage.. but Fishing would probably not be on the banned list……

      riding a motorcycle maybe.

  55. habsfan0 says:

    Last week Marc Bergevin maintained that Scott Gomez is a member of the Habs and expected him to show up for training camp. 2 and a half hours before start of camp, Bergevin informs Gomez he is no longer a welcome part of team.

    Last week Bergevin maintained that he fully intended to sign PK prior to camp’s opening.

    That ain’t happening,either.

    Marc Bergevin is officially on the clock.

  56. frontenac1 says:

    Question. Does buying out this Summer count against The Cap the same way as Buying out under the last CBA?

  57. CharlieHodgeFan says:

    If I were Gomez I’d be sitting in a hotel with a hammer in hand looking at my toes.


    $1.5 million!


  58. 24 Cups says:

    This is not a classless move – it’s strictly business. An outcome of the new CBA. Other teams may do the same thing i.e. Wade Redden.

    For anyone feeling sorry for Scott Gomez connsider this – he will be paid 3.3M for not playing this year. The next two years he gets 1.5M per season AND will have the option of signing with another team (which may well happen).

    That means he is only losing 1.5M in total salary for not playing with Montreal for three years. That works out to $500000 grand a year which he could easy make up on a new contract in 2013-14.

    Don’t cry for me Argentina.

    • Bergy concluded the presser saying he had nothing personal against Gomez.

      Just a team business decision (a very smart one), nothing more.


      Habs talk at Eyes on The Prize and history at Le Tir, et Le But! Follow me on Twitter

    • likehoy says:

      I think if Gomer was given a tryout in camp before the decision was made, it’d be more classy, but cause they didn’t even give him a chance.. I feel it’s classless cause you didn’t give the man a chance to redeem himself.

      but given the financial issues, it’s the right emotionless decision to make.

      I like the boldness and exactly the way a GM should be like (reminds me of Moneyball)

      • Stevie.Ray says:

        So letting him tryout, and the sending him home would have been better? He was getting sent home regardless because they need to buy him out as he costs too much. His on ice production is not really in question. Letting him tryout would have given the impression that he wasn’t good enough, whereas being sent home now at least confirms it is an unfortunate business move

      • 24 Cups says:

        If Gomez got hurt in practice then his salary would be on the Habs.

        The injury factor is all about timing. Most injuries have a defined time period (Gionta). Some carry over into the summer or next season (Bourque). Some are indefinite (Savard, Pronger). That’s a chance Montreal (or any other team) couldn’t afford to take.

        I don’t see this as an issue over values or ethics. It’s just implementing the new CBA. I’m sure Fehr was aware of this possible outcome and mentioned that point to the players.

      • Puck Bard says:

        likehoy, he has had three years to redeem himself.

        Glad it’s finally over so I can come back to this site.

    • Loonie says:

      I’m not crying for Gomez Steve. The point is that this decision wasn’t made last night as Bergevin apparently suggested.

      The new CBA had little to do with this decision. Gomez was going home either way. There was no reason to lead him to believe he wasn’t.

      • Phil C says:

        I disagree, without the compliance buyout option of the new CBA, Gomez would probably at least get a try out. It would have been unwise for MB to act on the new CBA before the MOU was signed. Today was his first real chance to act.

        • Loonie says:

          The new CBA doesn’t change the fact that Gomez wasn’t going to be on this team.

          This was the least desired option for the Habs.

          Bergevin was going to either….

          1) Use an amnesty or compliance buyout on Gomez right away or….

          2) Send him home with pay in the event he couldn’t act on optino #1.

          Gomez didn’t need to be strung along.

          • Phil C says:

            I guess that’s where we differ. I really think Gomez would be getting a chance under the old rules. They would try to increase his trade value, or at least increase his value enough to be picked up on waivers. If buying him out, they would have at least waited until next summer to buy him out given the shortened season. Under the old rules, there would be no advantage to sitting him.

      • HardHabits says:

        They couldn’t tell him until the players voted on the CBA. It’s that simple. Of course the decision was made before last night.

        If bold is classless (although IMO it isn’t) I’ll take it. Nice guys finish last after all.

        • Loonie says:

          Yes they could have Dave. They could have told him in July prior to the lockout.

          The lockout had no bearing on whether or not Gomez would be on the ice for the Habs when hockey resumed. He was never going to be.

          • db says:

            There was no rush to do that in July though… They took their time and came to the best hockey decision possible for the team.

            To me, it’s a classy move, since they tried to keep him on the team but the only option left was to send him home.

            They weren’t sure if this was like a regular buyout, there was no type of buyout like this before so why not wait until the CBA is ratified, last night. They knew their options, but the decision was finalized last night.

      • punkster says:

        Is it not possible there are other reasons the move was made now and not last year? None that come to mind?

        ***Subbang Baby!!!***

        • helluva habs fan says:

          They didn’t know about the amnesty buyouts last year. Under the old CBA, a buyout at this stage of his contract wouldn’t have freed up near as much cap space.

          • punkster says:

            I realize this…I’m asking Tom to expand his horizons a bit…think about it…why ELSE would MB make this move now?

            ***Subbang Baby!!!***

      • 24 Cups says:

        I didn’t read any comments below because I find this site really slow these days (on IE). But I have read some reactions on TSN.

        I the new CBA has everything to do with this decision, otherwise, the Habs would have brought Gomez back to fill out a weak lineup.

        Rumours about buying out players (by sitting them down) were ongoing so I can’t believe that Fehr didn’t realize this would be an outcome of the new deal. They talked about it in New York with Redden.

        As for the timing, I guess they had to wait for the official ratification. It’s too bad that he had to come all the way from Alaska but he would still have to do so in terms of tiding up his personal affairs.

        • Loonie says:

          How did the ratification of the new CBA prevent them from telling Gomez in July that he wouldn’t be on the team when play resumed?

          • 24 Cups says:

            For one simple reason – at that point in time there were no negotiations going on and the issue of buyouts wasn’t on the table (seeing there was no table). In fact, buyouts didn’t come into play until much later in the lockout. Once the lockout began, there was a communication ban between players and the league.

          • Loonie says:

            Right. But either way he wasn’t going to be on the team. If there were no immediate buyouts which we know to be the case they were going to do this.

      • ZepFan2 says:

        “The point is that this decision wasn’t made last night as Bergevin apparently suggested.”

        So basically you’re calling MB a liar. I think I’ll believe him before I believe you.

        Ka is a wheel.

        “Bring it back home to me baby”

        Bring it on Home

        • Loonie says:

          You really think he decided on this last night?

          Yes, on this point, I’m calling him a liar.

          • ZepFan2 says:

            After reading the fine print in the new CBA, yes, I do. That being said, I’m sure Bergevin had this as plan b or c.

            Like I said, I’ll believe him before I believe you.

            Ka is a wheel.

            “Bring it back home to me baby”

            Bring it on Home

    • DDO_Habs_Fan says:

      A Montreal GM finally makes a correct a hockey/salary cap move and he still get criticized. As Obama said used to say during the election: “It’s math”. There was just no way the Habs could carry his cap hit next year.

    • Ozmodiar says:

      Comments about this being a classless move are ridiculous.

      Not pretty, perhaps, but it had to be done.

    • Chris says:

      I detest Scott Gomez as a player. I’m glad he is gone.

      But I disagree with you about this move.

      This is the absolute definition of classless.

      However, it is also ruthless, and I think that is why it is a good business decision.

      Time will tell if Bergevin suffers from being ruthless when it came to Scott Gomez. Gomez has enough profile that players around the league will have noticed this decision.

      We’ll have to wait and see what the long-term ramifications might be, if any.

      • Ozmodiar says:

        Not classless at all. Just a business decision.

      • Mike D says:

        Sorry Chris, but I gotta disagree. It was not classless at all.

        As far as long-term ramifications (negative ones), I don’t think there will be any. Nobody in their right mind would fault the Habs for this move. Look at what the Rangers did with Redden. They were still able to sign Richards and trade for Nash.

        If any recent Habs moves might have ramifications amongst the players, it would be the Cammy trade. However, that was done under the old regime and hopefully players realize that.

        – Honestly yours
        Twitter: @de_benny

  59. HABZ24 says:

    GLORY HALALOOOYUH !! Gomer would be a distraction from second one, habs dont need it. Great great thing.shows right off the bat that the new management isnt dicking around anymore.sends a clear mssg to all floaters who think a jobs a lock.good ridence…wish i got ten mill to watch games on tv !!


  60. habsfan0 says:

    I’m assuming that Gomez might still be traded. Even though he has a huge contract and his on ice skills have diminished, he is still a pretty decent skater. There will undoubtedly be some teams in the NHL which will have trouble putting fans into seats,particularly at first. Having a flashy skater on their roster might be just the ticket!

  61. HabFab says:

    Galchenyuk is wearing #27.

  62. Carta-Hab says:

    Dan Kramer ‏@DanKramerHabs
    I’m sorry RDS… WHAT?! “Why did they say Galchenyuk didn’t dominate WJC? Because Grigorenko was the one getting top PP minutes.” WHAT EVEN?

    Wow…now that is some sloppy journalism.

    Mike Milbury, Don Cherry, and PJ Stock….The three stooges of HNIC.

    • Gagnon on RDS was also maintaining indirectly that Gomez was a cancer in the locker room, even after Bergevin said that wasn’t the case.

      They like to stir the pot there sometimes.


      Habs talk at Eyes on The Prize and history at Le Tir, et Le But! Follow me on Twitter

      • HardHabits says:

        That is not what FG said. He suggested they didn’t want his presence in either locker room due to his lack of production and his lackadaisical attitude because of it. He surmised that the Habs figured he would be of no value to the Bulldogs locker room and I agree with him.

        Everybody seems to agree that Gomez is a good guy. Nobody would suggest he is a cancer. But his being there, getting paid big bucks, sends a wrong message. This is good. Veterans should not be protected, they should either lead or produce, hopefully both, like Cole. Gomez did neither.

  63. HardHabits says:

    My other prediction and I am agreeing with 24 Cups. Galchenyuk will stay with the team as a LW auxiliary centre.

    EDIT: LW on the top 6.

  64. showey47 says:

    Apparently last summer gauthier had a deal in place to move gomez to the islanders but they were one of the teams scotty wouldn’t accept a trade which he was allowed to do under his contract. If the story is true, i wonder if he regrets it now? I guess either way he gets paid this year but as a hockey player last thing anybody wants to do is sit at home.

  65. Strummer says:

    This just in-

    Gomez and Brian Burke are going out for beers.

    They will flip a coin for the bill.
    “It’s just an opinion – I could be wrong”

  66. Habfan10912 says:

    Now that Meehan’ s schedule has been cleared and Del Zotto’s contract completed, can we anticipate a PK signing soon? Getting nervous.


    • Strummer says:

      If you saw MB’s presser on TSN.ca he said he met with PK and Meehan yesterday in Toronto.
      They’re getting close.

      “It’s just an opinion – I could be wrong”

  67. HabFab says:

    Salary Cap update;

    $62,727,976 – 22 players under contract includes Gomez
    -$900,000 – Cap Salary rebate for paying Gomez to be elsewhere
    =$61,827,976 out of $70,200,000 ( 21 players)
    $8,372,024 – balance

    IMO strong chance now that Galchenyuk stays ($3,225,000)
    Leaves $5,147,024 to sign PK and for call ups.

  68. aj says:

    It seems Darche will likely be a part of the Devils this season. Just reading this from Andre Corbeil from CTV: Andre Corbeil @AcorbeilCTV – Hey @matdarche52. Congrats on ur work w the P.A. and good luck in N.J. Good guys don’t finish last!! Keep it up.

  69. HabinBurlington says:

    I think the only remaining question is what will MattyLeg do with his Gomez jersey which he received at the last Summit? Suggestions for Matty I think will be welcomed.

  70. Peterpatch says:

    I would like to ask Gainey why he gave up so much for Gomez!!! Just taking him off the Rangers should have been it. It will be interesting to see what The Canucks get for Luongo.

  71. Chris says:

    I think that my feelings about Scott Gomez were pretty clear. But I don’t like this move at all.

    As much as I detested Scott Gomez as a player, dating back to New Jersey and intensifying after he laid eggs in New York and Montreal, this is a borderline classless manoeuvre on the part of the Montreal Canadiens.

    If Gomez were being paid $2-3 million per season, he’d be a perfectly adequate third line veteran player for a lot of teams in the NHL. It is the paycheque that causes the problems, but Montreal willingly picked up that contract despite knowing that he was in serious decline as a player.

    I am all for a buyout of Gomez and always have been. But I sincerely hope that the team at least allows Gomez to play in Europe or somewhere else so that he can keep his skills up for when the buyout comes, allowing him to sign on with another team. Missing a full season could be a death knell for his career, otherwise, and that would be a pretty chilling message to send to future veteran players concerning a franchise that has already had to overpay players to compensate for the media intrusion and higher tax rate that goes hand-in-hand with being a Montreal Canadien.

    • HardHabits says:

      I completely disagree on all points. This is a necessary move. They can’t let him play. If he gets a hockey related injury they wont be able to buy him out.

      Gomez’ lack of production is the only death knell for his career.

      • Chris says:

        So are we going to send Bourque and Kaberle home this season as well, just in case we decide to buy one of them out as well to free up some roster spots?

        I’m used to us disagreeing, but I will maintain that this was an absolutely stupid move from my perspective, and I am firmly in the anti-Gomez camp.

        We’re turning into the New Jersey Devils ca. mid 1980’s with some of this crap. We send Laraque home mid-season, we send Gomez home (why not buy him out last summer when they had the chance?), we ship a play off in the middle of a game…this is becoming farcical.

        • likehoy says:

          class or classless, all that matters is winning.

          Just like Brian Burke said yesterday, it doesn’t matter what his personality is as long if he was winning more games.

          same deal here.

          IF habs win more games this year.. we’re going to look back and say “bold move, but we’re a winning team”

          I know we’d love to always make classy decisions in everything we do.. but if you limit yourself to just classy decisions, you might miss the boat.

        • Phil C says:

          If the Habs had bought out Gomez last summer, the consequences would have been huge for the cap hit. The cap hit for the next four seasons would have been:

          2012-13: $3,523,810
          2013-14: $4,523,810
          2014-15: $1,666,667
          2015-16: $1,666,667

          This way, after this season, the cap hit is zero thanks to the new CBA. This is a much smarter way to do it, and could be the difference between keeping and losing players like Subban and Eller in a salary cap world.

        • New says:

          I think Chris you have to look at the injury comment. Let Gomez set foot on the ice and you take a risk of not being able to control the budget. It isn’t that guys like Scott Gomez or BGL can’t play hockey, both of them can. It is that they no longer wanted to. They just want the most money they can get.

          I think Gomez would have been gone long ago except for timely injuries and his ability to nix trades to some teams. He milked the team. Now they are saying he doesn’t figure in their plans. Likewise they will give high profile players who want a spot a chance to play.

          It is the best of bad choices. Uninjured you can get rid of him. Injured you can’t. (I am a little biased admittedly because I was thinking this way awhile ago and everyone likes to hit it bang on, but really it is a starting over decision that is workable)

        • Bill says:

          I disagree but see your point. I mean, he’s killing cap space this year no matter what. Why not play him? Apparently because if he gets hurt, he can’t be bought out. Ok, but if he’s hurt bad enough to not be bought out, he can just go on LTIR. Habs would pay him next season regardless.

          Am I wrong?

          This strongly suggests that Bergevin and Therrien can’t see a place for Gomez on the roster. Personally I’m happy with Desharnais, Pleks, and Eller as the top three down the middle.

          I think we will see Galchenyuk and Dumont on the roster this year.

          Full Breezer 4 Life

          • Mike D says:

            He can only be on LTIR for the time he’s injured though. If he was healthy for next season then the Habs are in a world of hurt since they couldn’t avoid his cap hit, and would need to make some bad moves just to be cap compliant.

            If that happened, everyone on HIO and every other Habs fan would lynch MB for not protecting the team from this possibility when he had the chance.

            – Honestly yours
            Twitter: @de_benny

        • db says:

          The cap drops by 10 mil…. it’s just needed.

      • Loonie says:

        I don’t think anybody can argue the team isn’t better off without Gomez in the lineup. But some members here are saying that this couldn’t have been done without the new CBA which is false. This could have been done in the summer prior to the lockout.

        There were minimal and inconsequential reasons to wait until today. Could have been done in June, July or August.

        • Chris says:

          Actually, it could only be done before June 15th (buyouts have to be completed by that time). But that still gave Bergevin six weeks to decide, and he passed the buck, probably counting on this provision.

          It basically screws the player over completely. I think Gomez mailed it in the past couple of seasons, but he was hardly alone in that regard.

          You can’t expect players to honour contracts if the teams refuse to do so. Montreal is paying Gomez to do nothing this season. My hope is that they will at least do the honourable thing and negotiate a transfer or loan agreement with a European team, as Chicago was able to do with Huet or Calgary did with Marcus Nilson.

          • Loonie says:

            My only point here is that the intention was to pay him to stay home or buy him out under amnesty with no penalty at the start of the new CBA. Gomez could have had the news months ago.

            They didn’t have to buy him out in June, but could have told him he wasn’t in their plans in June instead of indicating otherwise to him, his teammates, the media and fans.

          • New says:

            I think Gomez finished the season on the injured list. Concussion. I don’t think he was cleared until just before he signed with Alaska during the lockout. They couldn’t get rid of him under the old CBA .

          • Mike D says:


            I get that they could have told him earlier he wasn’t in their plans, BUT, if there was no amnesty buyout or a cap that shrinks significantly, then maybe they keep him and play him.

            If things would have gone that route, then it wouldn’t be fair to Gomez to tell him he’s gone in June and tell him he’s back in January. I don’t think that would be any better in terms of how the team treats his personnel. The only other option in this scenario is that you stick with the decision to sit him, but now you’re sitting him when he’s not hurting your cap which is also not fair.

            – Honestly yours
            Twitter: @de_benny

        • Strummer says:

          Prior to the lockout Gomez’ buyout would have counted aginst the salary cap.

          BIG difference,especially witha shrinking cap!

          “It’s just an opinion – I could be wrong”

    • However…if and I mean big a if, Gomez arrived out of shape and or late and or showed that he wasn’t willing to do all the right things, then management was spot on. But we don’t know what happened over the last two days.

      They Call Me Shane
      “They never asked to be Canadiens, they were Chosen.”
      Shane Oliver
      Twitter @Sholi2000
      Custom Sports Figures

      • Chris says:

        Gomez was in town on time, and all accounts seem to be that he was healthy and ready to go after his disastrous season last year. And there was no way to ascertain whether he was willing to do all the right things because Bergevin axed him before that could be settled.

        We certainly don’t know the details, and maybe there are issues that haven’t been reported, but I think the simplest answer is usually the right one: this was purely a salary cap move, and it may not play well with the players in the room. Remember that we have two of the most vocal union guys as team leaders (Gorges and Cole) and Gomez was very tight with a number of other veterans, including the team captain.

        I’ll agree with anybody who points out that Gomez brought the buyout down on himself through his lacklustre play. But you’ve still got to manage perception amongst the players around the league, and I’m not sure this particular roster move passes the sniff test.

    • Chuck says:

      If the salary cap wasn’t set to decrease, I doubt that they’d be making this move. But now they’ve got to work within a new financial framework. Unfortunately, Gomez is a casualty.

      Being a Hab fan is like buying real estate: only over the long-haul will you appreciate the true value of your investment.

      • Loonie says:

        That’s a fair point Chuck. My only counter point to that would be that there’s no way Bergevin couldn’t have anticipated the Cap going down prior to the lockout.

        This could have been done during the summertime to provide clarity and an early resolution so that Gomez’s teammates and he himself could’ve moved on a long time ago and gone into the season without the distraction.

    • Loonie says:


      It seems that because it was Bergevin who made the move it’s being seen by the majority as a good hockey ops move. I don’t disagree with that thought either.

      But my issue is that if Gauthier or Gainey makes this move, it’s ABSOLUTELY seen as classless and I have no doubt this board would be littered with Gauthier and Gainey bashing from that angle.

      • Chris says:

        We had a chance to guy Gomez out back in mid-June of last summer. Bergevin, who was hired on May 2nd, had six weeks to evaluate whether to buy Gomez out and I think many of us were disappointed when he refused to do so.

        • Loonie says:

          At the very least Gomez could have been told during that time that he wouldn’t be on the team buyout or not. And it’s pretty clear that decision was made prior to last night. I don’t believe Bergevin for a minute if he said the decision was made at 11pm last night.

        • Chuck says:

          They also knew that there was going to be a new CBA that they’d have to operate under it going forward. Not wise to make huge financial decision without knowing how they would affect the team under the new CBA.

          Being a Hab fan is like buying real estate: only over the long-haul will you appreciate the true value of your investment.

      • HardHabits says:

        This move is not classless at all and Gauthier or Gainey would probably not have done it because it would be an admission of error. One of the big reasons why Gauthier and Gainey got bashed was because of Gomez. This wipes part of the BG/PG fiasco clean. Still more cleaning up to do though.

        • Loonie says:

          So trading a player during a game is classless and telling a player all week he’s expected in camp with the intention well ahead of time is to not have him on the team isn’t?

          Come on Dave.

          • HardHabits says:

            They couldn’t say anything until the CBA got ratified. As I said before and 24 Cups concurs, this was a business move for the good of the team, both morally and financially. Pro sports is about winning, not about coddling.

          • Loonie says:

            Dave. Do you really think this decision was made in between September and now?

            Gomez could have been told he wasn’t going to be on the team in the summer while contractual issues were being sorted out.

            I’m glad Gomez isn’t going to be on the ice with the team, it’s a good hockey operations move. But players around the league will notice this as they noticed Cammalleri’s trade. And they’ll be seen in the same light.

  72. tagomagotexas says:

    Just a question for the cap experts. Say Galchenyuk makes the team and stays for the full season. Does that mean his full 3.2 M salary (with bonuses) count against the cap? It appears we have just over 6M in cap space left. So if we sign Subban, doesn’t that mean that we can’t afford Galchenyuk?

    • HammerHab says:

      I believe the cap hit minus the bonus counts this season. The bonus portion applies to next season’s cap hit depending on what the qualifications are for him to get his bonus (ie.games played, points scored).


      It’ll always be Habs Inside/Out to me

  73. Loonie says:

    Funny how a change of face can change perception.

    Gauthier trades a player during a game and it’s seen as a classless move.

    Bergevin sends a guy home on the first day of camp after having told him all week that he was a part of the team and expected on the ice. Not classless at all.

    • Chuck says:

      He was part of the team and expected to be on the ice… until 11pm last night, when they finally got the finalized CBA.

      Being a Hab fan is like buying real estate: only over the long-haul will you appreciate the true value of your investment.

    • HabinBurlington says:

      Are you really comparing the two? Given the entire premise of this move was to avoid Gomez being injured, given today is the first day they could do this, how do you see a better way to handle it?

      • Loonie says:

        By telling Gomez a long time ago that he wasn’t going to with the team this season. There’s no way Bergevin just woke up this morning and decided not to have Gomez on the team.

        Why tell him all week he was in the team’s plans?

    • Habfan10912 says:

      I thought I heard someone ask and the answer MB gave was something along the lines of he didn’t know if anything might change in the agreement? Seems a bit harsh that at the least they could have saved him a drive from New Jersey to Montreal. I wonder if Molson needed to be sold since it was his money.


    • tagomagotexas says:

      Interesting comment, but the two situations were different. Bergevin was forced to continue saying Gomez was part of the team until the CBA was finalized. Anything else would have been irresponsible.

      Gauthier made a classless move on a bad trade on the miniscule chance that Cam would get injured in the 3rd period.

      • Loonie says:

        He wasn’t forced at all. He could have done the exact same move under the old CBA during the summer prior to the lockout.

        • Mike D says:

          Wasn’t Gomez injured at the beginning of the offseason? If so, they couldn’t buy him out I believe.

          Either way, a buyout under the old CBA would have meant a cap hit for a few more years, some of them pretty large if I recall the capgeek numbers correctly.

          This was the best move for the team.

          – Honestly yours
          Twitter: @de_benny

          • Loonie says:

            I’m not talking about the buyout(which is the right move). They aren’t buying him out today. They’re sending him home. They could have told him in July that he wasn’t going to be on the roster at the end of the lockout instead of waiting until today.

          • Mike D says:

            I hear what you’re saying, but there was no way to guarantee the new CBA would have an amnesty buyout and they didn’t know what would happen to the cap under the new agreement.

            – Honestly yours
            Twitter: @de_benny

    • ZepFan2 says:

      Double Bubble

      Ka is a wheel.

      “Bring it back home to me baby”

      Bring it on Home

    • ZepFan2 says:

      “Bergevin said the decision on Gomez was made after he saw the final draft of the CBA at 11 p.m. Saturday and he met with Gomez at 7:30 a.m.”

      Not the same at all.

      Ka is a wheel.

      “Bring it back home to me baby”

      Bring it on Home

    • CharlieHodgeFan says:

      You should be on sports radio – that’s a good run at starting a fake controversy. The new CBA had to come out. Based on its fine print, and on his performance, Gomez got cut. He couldn’t be cut sooner.

      Tough for him, and very good for the team.

      I’d suggest you try a posting saying how much you’ll miss the guy as a team leader and how he would have scored twenty in the short season. That’ll be a more professional run at the forum, and you’ll get bites.

      • Loonie says:

        I guess there wasn’t a CBA in June eh?

        • Chuck says:

          There was, but they also knew that it was going to be replaced and that they’d have to operate under a new one going forward. Not wise to make huge financial decision without knowing how they would affect the team under the new CBA.

          Being a Hab fan is like buying real estate: only over the long-haul will you appreciate the true value of your investment.

        • ZepFan2 says:

          Yes there was. One that was going to expire. That’s why they voted on a NEW CBA.

          But you know this already, but have some interest in causing controversy where there’s none.

          Ka is a wheel.

          “Bring it back home to me baby”

          Bring it on Home

        • CharlieHodgeFan says:

          There was no impending buy out period in June.

          I expect this was no surprise to Gomez. The man has a brain, and he has an agent who no doubt saw this possibility.
          In effect, Scott Gomez got called in and told he had been traded to his couch. You can’t tell a guy he’s been traded til the deal goes through, right?
          I guess in baseball terms, he got told his contract had been sold to his couch.
          It’s a shame when any career reaches its end, but Gomez probably wouldn’t have been on the team this long if it weren’t for his contract keeping him there, and the moment the CBA/memorandum was signed, his contract had an out. It had to be taken.

        • Loonie says:

          Guys. You’re missing the point.

          If there was an amnesty buyout immediately with a new CBA they were going to buy him out. If there wasn’t they were going to send him home.

          Either way Gomez could have been told this was going to happen in the off-season.

          It isn’t like the new CBA forced their hand. He’s going home with his full salary paid and his cap number still counting.

          The new CBA had little effect on the human element of this decision if any at all.

    • HardHabits says:

      Apples and Oranges.

      Cammy got traded for speaking truth. During a game which is unprecedented.

      Gomez is being sent home for the good of the team. Circumstances dictated by the past and current CBA’s.

      You and Chris are way off base.

      This is a business not a glee club.

      • Loonie says:

        Cammalleri got traded for speaking the truth? Dave seriously. His effort was comparable to Gomez’s over the last two seasons and he had given up. I actually have that direct from a cousin of his but granted I have no idea whether it’s true or not.

        Anyway. The management team here deceived Gomez. Classless and unnecessary.

      • otter649 says:

        At least Cammy now looks like an old style hockey player when last week he had 2 or 3 front teeth knocked out during a scrimmage……

  74. CCL says:

    Too many mistakes in the pass by management. it’s gonna take MB awhile to sort this mess out. but I have faith in time he and his staff will have a Stanley cup team in Montreal. for now support the team he puts on the ice. things are not going to change over night. lets get hockey going. what happened, happened. just don.t let it happen again.

  75. homerbowen says:

    Gomez’ dismissal sends a clear message…. NO SLACKERS. His heart was not in the game and his talents left him years ago. Clealy it was a mistake to sign him and now let’s move on and ensure we don’t repeat those mistakes.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.