I’m not sure what you’re saying. Gavrikov could’ve (and was) moved without retention. Quick could not be.
They save money by not retaining at all on Gavrikov. They would lose money by not retaining on Quick… because he wouldn’t be tradable without retention.
oh no i was agreeing with you – it's not a "they will/won't retain" thing, it was about saving ownership's money.
gavrikov has a smaller cap hit but makes more money than quick, so swapping them saves the jackets money. then, trading quick with retention and replacing him with an AHL goalie on a two-way deal saves more money on top of that. as does trading nyquist with retention (unmovable without it) etc.
they could have retained on gavrikov (which would've allowed the boston deal to go through) but didn't; the end result is a different series of moves that saves ownership more money.
2025 7th and some Scrub G
uh excuse you, i distinctly remember michael hutchinson having a good couple of months 6-7 years ago lol