can anyone explain army making copley a key piece in a trade only to trade him right back ...
.. what was the point ?
We were going to lose him to Free Agency anyway, so trading him away was no big deal. He had to play basically every NHL game from when we traded him until his contract expired to get enough games not to qualify for Group 6 Unrestricted Free Agency (25 years or older, expired ELC, and played less than 28 games for a goalie). That wasn't going to happen. He was unlikely to re-sign due to the log jam. So we traded him.
As to why we traded for him? That is a more difficult question. Obviously we weren't sure what we had in Husso, and hadn't annointed him the heir apparent yet. The team has never shown any faith in Binnington. Copley was brought in as the next goalie in line. They obviously didn't like what they saw in hisfirst season in Chicago though. His first season after the trade, with Allen and Elliott both getting alternating injuries, we traded for Anders Nilsson. Neither Copley or Binnie had good numbers in their 1 (each) NHL game that season. Binnington was sub .800 and Copley in the mid-8's. They were both middling in the AHL, 2.75ish GAA and < .910 save percentage. Neither really took to the competition for time thing. Had Copley seized the reins and proven himself, we don't trade for Anders, he gets a few NHL games, and maybe he is our back-up the next year instead of Hutton. I assume that was the plan, to have either him or Binnington take back-up, but neither grabbed the opportunity. Had Copley done so, the trade may have looked differently in retrospect.