Confirmed with Link: Montreal sends Hoffman & Pitlick to Pittsburgh for Petry (25% retained by Pens), DeSmith, Legare & Pens 2025 2nd

[Rapala]

Just found the source that claims that Hughes was shopping Petry before even acquiring him.

Unfortunately, it’s Loaf Pagnotta so believe at your own risk.

Making noise before the egg has been laid does not sound anything like Hughes from what I've seen. My guess is he already had an idea of what the market is and who the interested parties will be. It's also evident he doesn't think Petry's play has eroded. Petry has played about 25% fewer games these past two seasons and 25% of his salary was retained. It's a matter of when he can get his price IMO.

 

[Tyson]

If Petry was traded for to be brought back into the fold there would have been some public acknowledgement from management.

 

[ReHabs]

If Petry was traded for to be brought back into the fold there would have been some public acknowledgement from management.

All signs point to this being the case but until the follow-up trade is made celebrating it as a massive Win by Went Wughes is premature. If we take on a 2.3m cap hit for this and next season hopefully we get some interesting package of pieces in return.

I think Hughes is a smart guy (and looks even more smart in comparison to his predecessor) so he's probably juggling a variety of options before making the move. Hopefully we have cause to celebrate in a few days.

 

[BaseballCoach]

If Petry was traded for to be brought back into the fold there would have been some public acknowledgement from management.

I have no doubt that Petry would not have been acquired unless Hughes could live with him not getting traded and thus having to start the season with us, at least.

 

[Tyson]

I have no doubt that Petry would not have been acquired unless Hughes could live with him not getting traded and thus having to start the season with us, at least.

I think Hughes knew there was a possibility that Petry might start the season in Montreal but I think the higher percentage is that Hughes wants to move him and DeSmith.

 

[morhilane]

Sorry but if you think DeSmith is more proven I could not disagree more. Monty should have earned a bit more respect by now. What exactly has DeSmith accomplished?

Accomplished? These are backup goalies not starters. DeSmith has more experience as a backup in the NHL than Monty does.

 

[Tyson]

Accomplished? These are backup goalies not starters. DeSmith has more experience as a backup in the NHL than Monty does.

Monty is 4 years younger, 6'3 and not 6'0 like DeSmith.
You may be right that the ultimate upside for Monty is as a back up but his upward trajectory the past 2 seasons tells me we shouldn't label him as a career back up just yet.

 

[Scriptor]

BTW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a career backup, IMO, especially if they are a quality backup. The extra games won quickly make the difference between making the playoffs or fighting for a playoff spot, unsure whether you end up in the postseason or not.

I'll take a 6,3' Montembeault that wins a bit more than 50% of his 32 games played over the long run, anyway, provided he is a 2M or less Goaltender for the overall Cap structure.

The backup G needs to be worthy of a 32-game workload in an ideal world, IMO, to limit the workload of the starter to 50 games and keep him fresh for the postseason as the G who plays every two days.

 

[salbutera]

Monty is 4 years younger, 6'3 and not 6'0 like DeSmith.
You may be right that the ultimate upside for Monty is as a back up but his upward trajectory the past 2 seasons tells me we shouldn't label him as a career back up just yet.

Yup - low probability he ends up a workhorse goalie like Hellebuyck but until proven otherwise, solid probability exists he could develop into a 40-45GP goalie.

 

[smirob]

I think we flip Petry before the season, we have veteran dmen with savard and matheson, and I don’t love the idea of someone who voiced their interest in leaving mentoring the young dmen…he’s gone

 

[26Mats]

I think we flip Petry before the season, we have veteran dmen with savard and matheson, and I don’t love the idea of someone who voiced their interest in leaving mentoring the young dmen…he’s gone

I think he'd be fine as a mentor. My only issue is we'd have to send one of Barron, Harris, or Xhekaj down. I don't think that would be bad for any one of those three at all in terms of development, though they wouldn't be happy about it.

But it would seem the market for Petry right now is very low. So hughes may want to keep him until his value on the market is at least decent, even if not at his actual value. His market value should be exactly equal to his actual value by TDL. No one knows exactly what that will be. But I would say olds are highest it's a 1st.

 

[LaP]

All signs point to this being the case but until the follow-up trade is made celebrating it as a massive Win by Went Wughes is premature. If we take on a 2.3m cap hit for this and next season hopefully we get some interesting package of pieces in return.

I think Hughes is a smart guy (and looks even more smart in comparison to his predecessor) so he's probably juggling a variety of options before making the move. Hopefully we have cause to celebrate in a few days.

I think Offman and Ptlick for a 2nd is already a win. Not a massive win but i'd say a win. We are talking about a fringe NHL player and a vet nobody wants.

 

[26Mats]

Monty is 4 years younger, 6'3 and not 6'0 like DeSmith.
You may be right that the ultimate upside for Monty is as a back up but his upward trajectory the past 2 seasons tells me we shouldn't label him as a career back up just yet.

Yup - low probability he ends up a workhorse goalie like Hellebuyck but until proven otherwise, solid probability exists he could develop into a 40-45GP goalie.

DeSmith was really bad for Pittsburgh in the games and highlights I saw, and he's 31. But I'm no expert onbhim.

Does anyone see upside in him?

I think it would be fine if we give him away for free or send him down. If Both DeSmith and Primeau clear waivers, I'd put DeSmith in the ECHL and focus on developing Primeau and Dobes in Laval. If Primeau gets claimed, DeSmith can backup Dobes in Laval. If Both Primeau and DeSmith get claimed, no big deal to lose DeSmith.

 

[Andy]

All signs point to this being the case but until the follow-up trade is made celebrating it as a massive Win by Went Wughes is premature. If we take on a 2.3m cap hit for this and next season hopefully we get some interesting package of pieces in return.

In the below threads you were willing to buyout Armia and Hoffman for no return at all. So, I presume that even if Hughes gets a 7th for Petry, you would be happy with the deal considering you were willing for the habs to carry deadcap without any return at all?

Maybe touting this trade as a win isn't premature after all given your prior convictions about carrying dead cap?

P.S. I find it comical how you are doing your darndest to pretzel your way out of complimenting this trade when Hughes managed to get rid of a player you wanted to buy out, brought back assets, including a tradeable player who can be moves with a retention cost less than what you were willing to spend in buy outs.

We don’t need to send value out. Harris isn’t worthless. If he has trouble moving Hoffman, the buyout is the right move. The net cap penalty is tiny and only in year3 and year4.

1.4m in cap hit when the cap ceiling is 90m+ seems like a small thing to concern oneself. Other teams are using buyouts left and right, why the excessive caution?

By shedding Armie the Habs can utilize Ylonen or another grinder player with more upside and more trade value. Acquiring an asset or several AND developing players in exchange for 1.4m cap hit seems not foolish or unnecessary.

HF Habs: - Trade Proposal Thread #85 - Offseason Editon

Dvorak for Mantha 1 for 1 Dvorak has 2 years remaining and Mantha only one. Which is a good thing.

forums.hfboards.com

HF Habs: - Trade Proposal Thread #85 - Offseason Editon

Josh Anderson was worth something. Right? And if he has another low-productive season and is a year older and maybe at risk of more injury he will be presumably worth less than that, right? If all of Hofmann, Armia, Dvorak, and Anderson are worth nothing then the Habs should’ve buried, sold...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[ReHabs]

I think Offman and Ptlick for a 2nd is already a win. Not a massive win but i'd say a win. We are talking about a fringe NHL player and a vet nobody wants.

The trade wasn't Hoffman and Pitlick for a 2nd. Petry's a two year cap dump we took on + that goalie with the 1.8m cap hit... so you can't just split the trade in half and say this one half is a win. Nobody wanted Petry at 4.6x2 from the Pens. He's a cap dump just like Hoffman was. Hoffman has an expiring contract and Petry's expires when he's 37 -- both are equally unattractive to a competitive teams.

I'd agree that other teams are likely more interested in the hockey player Petry than hockey player Hoffman but at the right price (cap hit) and so that's where we find ourselves waiting: in anticipation for the right price to reveal itself.

In the below threads you were willing to buyout Armia and Hoffman for no return at all. So, I presume that even if Hughes gets a 7th for Petry, you would be happy with the deal considering you were willing for the habs to carry deadcap without any return at all?

Maybe touting this trade as a win isn't premature after all given your prior convictions about carrying dead cap?

P.S. I find it comical how you are doing your darndest to pretzel your way out of complimenting this trade when Hughes managed to get rid of a player you wanted to buy out, brought back assets, including a tradeable player who can be moves with a retention cost less than what you were willing to spend in buy outs.

If Hughes sells Petry for nothing and doesn't retain, I think the trade is a minor W. Nothing to celebrate, it's a paper shuffling move in the end. A 2nd to take on the cap hit of the 1.8m G and no penalties for getting rid of Hoffman is pretty good. But we don't have that right now, we have Petry's 4.6m on the books for this and next season. Until the move is completed we can't know what it'll look like. If the Habs have to retain 2.3m for 24-25 then the return for Petry@50% better be good.

Re your PS: The rumoured retention cost of 2.3m (50% of 4.6) is larger than the net yearly cap penalty from the two proposed buyouts. So, you should update your foolish post-script and stop trying to bite my ankle.

Taking on Petry's 4.6m in 24-25 is absolutely not worth a PIT's 2nd round pick and that's the problem I have with premature celebration. Until that 4.6m commitment is off the books OR Petry's cap hit partially retained for a worthwhile return... the trade is incomplete or neutral at best. Of course this is my opinion, I know how some of you get whenever anybody criticizes the Habs GM. Or doesn't instantly declare any move he makes as a big Win. Feisty.

If Armia was bought out this off-season the Habs would've had cap SAVINGS of 3.3, 2.3, (1.4), (1.4) in the following four cap-seasons. If Hoffman was bought out the Habs would've had cap SAVINGS of 3.3, (1.6) in the following two cap-seasons.

Net result would've been a whopping 6.6m in extra cap space in 23-24 (+ two roster spots to use on FAs/capdumps), 0.7m in extra cap space in 24-25, and -1.4m penalties in the following two season.

The difference between inexplicably taking on Jeff Petry's 4.6m for '24-25 and saving 0.7m is... 5.3m. You're math is off by cool 5.3m. Cheers thanks.

 

[Hacketts]

The trade wasn't Hoffman and Pitlick for a 2nd. Petry's a two year cap dump we took on + that goalie with the 1.8m cap hit... so you can't just split the trade in half and say this one half is a win. Nobody wanted Petry at 4.6x2 from the Pens. He's a cap dump just like Hoffman was. Hoffman has an expiring contract and Petry's expires when he's 37 -- both are equally unattractive to a competitive teams.

I'd agree that other teams are likely more interested in the hockey player Petry than hockey player Hoffman but at the right price (cap hit) and so that's where we find ourselves waiting: in anticipation for the right price to reveal itself.


If Hughes sells Petry for nothing and doesn't retain, I think the trade is a minor W. Nothing to celebrate, it's a paper shuffling move in the end. A 2nd to take on the cap hit of the 1.8m G and no penalties for getting rid of Hoffman is pretty good. But we don't have that right now, we have Petry's 4.6m on the books for this and next season. Until the move is completed we can't know what it'll look like. If the Habs have to retain 2.3m for 24-25 then the return for Petry@50% better be good.

Re your PS: The rumoured retention cost of 2.3m (50% of 4.6) is larger than the net yearly cap penalty from the two proposed buyouts. So, you should update your foolish post-script and stop trying to bite my ankle.

Taking on Petry's 4.6m in 24-25 is absolutely not worth a PIT's 2nd round pick and that's the problem I have with premature celebration. Until that 4.6m commitment is off the books OR Petry's cap hit partially retained for a worthwhile return... the trade is incomplete or neutral at best. Of course this is my opinion, I know how some of you get whenever anybody criticizes the Habs GM. Or doesn't instantly declare any move he makes as a big Win. Feisty.

If Armia was bought out this off-season the Habs would've had cap SAVINGS of 3.3, 2.3, (1.4), (1.4) in the following four cap-seasons. If Hoffman was bought out the Habs would've had cap SAVINGS of 3.3, (1.6) in the following two cap-seasons.

Net result would've been a whopping 6.6m in extra cap space in 23-24 (+ two roster spots to use on FAs/capdumps), 0.7m in extra cap space in 24-25, and -1.4m penalties in the following two season.

The difference between inexplicably taking on Jeff Petry's 4.6m for '24-25 and saving 0.7m is... 5.3m. You're math is off by cool 5.3m. Cheers thanks.

So just a simple question.

If you were the GM, would you have made that trade?

 

[Andy]

The trade wasn't Hoffman and Pitlick for a 2nd. Petry's a two year cap dump we took on + that goalie with the 1.8m cap hit... so you can't just split the trade in half and say this one half is a win. Nobody wanted Petry at 4.6x2 from the Pens. He's a cap dump just like Hoffman was. Hoffman has an expiring contract and Petry's expires when he's 37 -- both are equally unattractive to a competitive teams.

I'd agree that other teams are likely more interested in the hockey player Petry than hockey player Hoffman but at the right price (cap hit) and so that's where we find ourselves waiting: in anticipation for the right price to reveal itself.


If Hughes sells Petry for nothing and doesn't retain, I think the trade is a minor W. Nothing to celebrate, it's a paper shuffling move in the end. A 2nd to take on the cap hit of the 1.8m G and no penalties for getting rid of Hoffman is pretty good. But we don't have that right now, we have Petry's 4.6m on the books for this and next season. Until the move is completed we can't know what it'll look like. If the Habs have to retain 2.3m for 24-25 then the return for Petry@50% better be good.

Re your PS: The rumoured retention cost of 2.3m (50% of 4.6) is larger than the net yearly cap penalty from the two proposed buyouts. So, you should update your foolish post-script and stop trying to bite my ankle.

Taking on Petry's 4.6m in 24-25 is absolutely not worth a PIT's 2nd round pick and that's the problem I have with premature celebration. Until that 4.6m commitment is off the books OR Petry's cap hit partially retained for a worthwhile return... the trade is incomplete or neutral at best. Of course this is my opinion, I know how some of you get whenever anybody criticizes the Habs GM. Or doesn't instantly declare any move he makes as a big Win. Feisty.

If Armia was bought out this off-season the Habs would've had cap SAVINGS of 3.3, 2.3, (1.4), (1.4) in the following four cap-seasons. If Hoffman was bought out the Habs would've had cap SAVINGS of 3.3, (1.6) in the following two cap-seasons.

Net result would've been a whopping 6.6m in extra cap space in 23-24 (+ two roster spots to use on FAs/capdumps), 0.7m in extra cap space in 24-25, and -1.4m penalties in the following two season.

The difference between inexplicably taking on Jeff Petry's 4.6m for '24-25 and saving 0.7m is... 5.3m. You're math is off by cool 5.3m. Cheers thanks.

I knew would perform some mental gymnastics to weasel out of this.

Again, I find it very comical how difficult it is for you to comment positively on this trade without qualifier considering you were willing to buyout two players with 0 assets in return.

The fact that Hughes turned Hoffman into a second, and could still trade DeSmith or Petry (or now even Allen) for more assets blows any solution you proposed re:Hoffman out of the water. Oh, and in this scenario, the habs don't have to committ deadcap to Armia until 2026-2027.

This is exhibit A of how you don't participate on these boards in good faith.

And yes, absorbing Petry's 4.6 salary (after Pitt) retention is absolutely a good move considering the habs are not competing this year or next and don't realistically have anything to spend it on. It is a superior move in every way to buying out Hoffman and Armia.

You're just not a serious poster.

So in your mind, it is better to buyout Hoffman and Armia, get no assets in return and spend that cap space on no one, than to trade Hoffman to get take on a second, Petry (possibly tradeable asset) and De Smith (possible tradeable asset, or asset leading to an Allen) trade?

Sorry man, you're just so obviously wrong it's not even worth continuing this discussion.

 

[ReHabs]

So just a simple question.

If you were the GM, would you have made that trade?

I think the trade is incomplete, so we'll know if it's worthwhile when Petry's moved. If we end up stuck holding onto Petry, no. Giving up 4.6m in cap space next season and taking on MORE cap hit this season is not worth a single 2nd round pick.

 

[ReHabs]

I knew would perform some mental gymnastics to weasel out of this.

Again, I find it very comical how difficult it is for you to comment positively on this trade without qualifier considering you were willing to buyout to people with 0 assets in return.

The fact that Hughes turned Hoffman into a second, and could still trade DeSmith or Petry (or now even Allen) for more assets blows any solution you proposed re:Hoffman out of the water. Oh, and in this scenario, the habs don't have to committ deadcap to Armia until 2026-2027.

This is exhibit A of how you don't participate on these boards in good faith.

And yes, absorbing Petry's 4.6 salary (after Pitt) retention is absolutely a good move considering the habs are not competing this year or next and don't realistically have anything to spend it on. It is a superior move in every way to buying out Hoffman and Armia.

You're just not a serious poster.

What a ridiculous response. And if I bother taking the time to reply you'll pull the same jerk move all over again. It's no-win with you, you make no effort to come to a common ground. I've seen many of you do it.

Hughes didn't turn Hoffman into a 2nd round pick. He sold cap space in 24-25 and acquired Petry's 4.6m cap hit to get that 2nd round pick! Cap space is an asset and you wave it away with "well the Habs won't be competing in the 24-25 season so who cares about a 4.6m cap hit anyway, we got a 2nd round pick". Come on, this is joker talk.

 

[Andy]

I think the trade is incomplete, so we'll know if it's worthwhile when Petry's moved. If we end up stuck holding onto Petry, no. Giving up 4.6m in cap space next season and taking on MORE cap hit this season is not worth a single 2nd round pick.

The habs moved Hoffman, an asset who you wanted to commit deadcap to into 3 assets: A second round pick that could be used as currency for future moves; Jeff Petry, who can be traded, and if not, opens the possibility of moving Savard instead; De Smith, who also can be traded, but opens up the possibility of moving Allen.

Hughes went from a situation where he was stuck with Hoffman on the club taking up a roster spot, or with him dead on the cap via buy out, into three assets that give the habs options they did not have prior.

Considering the habs don't have any use for their cap space as they are not competing this year or next, the trade is a no brainer for anyone who doesn't have an agenda.

What a ridiculous response. And if I bother taking the time to reply you'll pull the same jerk move all over again. It's no-win with you, you make no effort to come to a common ground. I've seen many of you do it.

Hughes didn't turn Hoffman into a 2nd round pick. He sold cap space in 24-25 and acquired Petry's 4.6m cap hit to get that 2nd round pick! Cap space is an asset and you wave it away with "well the Habs won't be competing in the 24-25 season so who cares about a 4.6m cap hit anyway, we got a 2nd round pick". Come on, this is joker talk.

He used the cap space acquired from moving Hoffman (a player you were willing to dump for 0 assets) into several assets. The cap space for Petry doesn't happen without dumping Hoffman. So yes, it is very much moving Hoffman to absorb Petry's contract.

Hughes approach smokes your approach out of the water. For someone who accuses others of galaxy brain thinking, you sure do like to think you are smarter than everyone.

 

[ReHabs]

The habs moved Hoffman, an asset who you wanted to commit deadcap to into 3 assets: A second round pick that could be used as currency for future moves; Jeff Petry, who can be traded, and if not, opens the possibility of moving Savard instead; De Smith, who also can be traded, but opens up the possibility of moving Allen.

Hughes went from a situation where he was stuck with Hoffman on the club taking up a roster spot, or with him dead on the cap via buy out, into three assets that give the habs options they did not have prior.

Considering the habs don't have any use for their cap space as they are not competing this year or next, the trade is a no brainer for anyone who doesn't have an agenda.


He used the cap space acquired from moving Hoffman (a player you were willing to dump for 0 assets) into several assets. The cap space for Petry doesn't happen without dumping Hoffman. So yes, it is very much moving Hoffman to absorb Petry's contract.

Hughes approach smokes your approach out of the water. For someone who accuses others of galaxy brain thinking, you sure do like to think you are smarter than everyone.

Hey you’re a genius right, can you tell us where the 4.6m in cap space comes from next year (24-25)?

Since you’re so smart and I’m so dim I’ll have to write it out for “my own” benefit

Hoffman: one cap-season commitment of 4.5m
Petry: two cap-season commitment of 4.6m

Should I make it more simple for “my own” benefit?

 

[Andy]

Hey you’re a genius right, can you tell us where the 4.6m in cap space comes from next year (24-25)?

Since you’re so smart and I’m so dim I’ll have to write it out for “my own” benefit

Hoffman: one cap-season commitment of 4.5m
Petry: two cap-season commitment of 4.6m

Should I make it more simple for “my own” benefit?

I'd take Petry for an extra season for the 2nd round pick and the chance of moving Petry for an additional asset.

If you want an extra 4.6M next season, I am sure you can concoct a buy-out scenario that starts with Armia since you are already so eager to buy him out now.

 

[Garry Valk]

And there he goes

 

[ReHabs]

I'd take Petry for an extra season for the 2nd round pick and the chance of moving Petry for an additional asset.

If you want an extra 4.6M next season, I am sure you can concoct a buy-out scenario that starts with Armia since you are already so eager to buy him out now.

Many people wanted to use a buyout on Hoffman and Armia, it’s not exactly a controversial idea. If Hughes had done it you would’ve had your fists in the air rooting it on.

And now we see the other foot drop. Great trade. Build a statue.

 

[WeThreeKings]

@Andy absolutely knocking it out of the park in this thread.

He exposed himself a long time ago as not debating in good faith, the cards are completely on the table here now and its undeniable.

Why anyone would continue to reply to someone who is obviously willing to fabricate any crack in something to complain about it, is the next question.

It's time to move on and realize there's nothing of value, its just a time vampire now.