Montreal gets "players" from Pitts to allow pitts to get a 30 something year old dman to go with mid to late 30s forwards; San Jose lets a 30 something year old dman go to Pitts burgh but doesn't give up anything to Montreal to make this deal happen, only Pitts does - never gets a glimpse at Stanley with this dman combined with Burns etc.... expecting something different in Pitts? only time will tell, and for Pitts time isn't their friend. Closes a bad situation in San Jose, that only left bad taste in San Jose's mouth. And don't forget for Pitts, will require certain kind of defensive partner for offensive Karlsson.

Are they though? Let's do the math.

Karlsson is owed $39M over the next 4 years. San Jose retained 13%, or $5M. They took back 3 players: Hoffman ($5M), Granlund ($11M) and Rutta ($5M). This trade is costing them $26M in cash over the next 4 years.

If they had simply retained 50% on Karlsson, that would have cost them $19.5M over the next 4 years. So this trade is NOT saving them money.

Here's the other thing: what would the return have been if they had offered to retain 50%? I would think it would be significantly higher in terms of picks & prospects.

Yes they do free up more cap space in year 3 and 4 doing it this way, but with the cap set to rise significantly and SJS not poised to come out of their rebuild any time soon, is this really any use to them?

I don't see any way to couch this as a successful manoeuvr by Grier.

Wow. I mean wow. I get that Karlsson is old and has a huge salary, but you’re telling me all San Jose could get for the reigning Norris winner was a protected first and a bunch of crap? I don’t get it.

It's not a proper description of him to call him a 100 pts defenseman alone. You have to mention
33 years old, signed for 4 more years
100 pts last year (but the only time he's ever done it)
After 2-3 years of being a 50 pt defenseman.

The last time he was point per game before last year was 8 years ago

I think Grier did badly. But I think your underappreciating that this was specifically to take the pain now and next year to have more flexibility in year 3+4. Presumably they want to be better then.

Also when you're looking at all players remember it replaces another player. They saved a lot of money in years 3+4

Year 3 +4 San Jose is still going to be garbage, and the cap limit will be above $90M. Retaining 50% would have given them a better now AND in the long term.

There's 2 wins!

It is bc they can flip both Granlund and Rutta at 50% retained to a contender for more stuff

Its quite clear this is an ownership decision to not eat dead money with EK65 50% retention as opposed to paying players like Granlund, Hoffman, Ruuta that will contribute (at the SJS long term detriment) Teams make bad choices because of optics and money. Being the devil's advocate can work but not here. The blueprint was out there to milk out of EK65 with a desperate team with value like the OEL deal. The Yotes got out of a worse contract than ek65 and got a lottery pick in Guenther. They Sharks got meh prospects and a protected pick to take on bad money. Claiming this is chicken salad and not chicken sh1t is the wrong take.

Poor Petry despite his 15 NTC....somehow Montreal wasn't on it....he's back with the Habs.
Sharks... I gæt it. They didn't want EK for four years at 11.5, (they have him at 1.5t) Yeah they have Hoffman and Granlund for one year at 9.5m, and Granlund for a second year.

Normaly isn't every team supposed to receive something from the other team?

Why habs didn't received something from SJ?

1. This is a trade involving the Sharks' franchise player who just happened to win the Norris Trophy as best NHL defenceman recently.

With retained salary for 4 years.

The only piece of any significance that the Sharks got is a Top 10 protected first.

This is not amazing work by San Jose.




2. A lot of the trades that Mike Grier has made as GM have resulted in the Sharks getting the "short end of the stick".

This is yet another example.




3. A player's on-ice performance has just as much weight as the contract to which he is signed.

Erik Karlsson is an elite franchise defenceman that just recently won the Norris Trophy.

He's not just a number on a piece of paper.

The Sharks should have got a first and then some.




4. The Sharks can't buy out Granlund or Rutta until next June.




5. When making a trade, the team decides when the trade happens, not the player.

The team's interests come before that of the player's when making a trade.

A hockey team is made up of 20-23 players, not just one.

I'm amazed I need to spell that out for you.




6. If Karlsson wanted out and there's no good trade to be made, then too bad.

No trade for Karlsson then.

He's under contract until 2027 and the Sharks held his rights until the day he becomes a UFA.

There's no such thing as "forever", so go easy on the hyperbole.




7. Mike Grier is a rookie GM who gets the "short end of the stick" way too often.

That's not exactly an impressive feat.

But you be you.

Maybe. But I'm not sure they're going to get much from either guy even at 50% retained. And that's still costing them cash (both players have 2 years left, so they aren't rentals).

Goodluck Pens are pretty close to being irrelevant with ZERO prospects in the pipeline. 1960’s-80’s Trash Penguins all over again.. crazy to think they’re still just the 4-5th “best” team in the Metro even after this trade. Wouldn’t be surprised if they miss the playoffs yet again.. with an aging injury prone core.

Come back in April and tell me how this trade looks. SJ won long term. In 2-3 years they’ll have 6 grade A prospects on the NHL roster making a name for themselves. They’ll be the next Devils , young talented core with tons of Cap space to add to FA’s.

1 - The retained salary is minimal compared to what most people expected.
2 - I don't really have a comment on that one.
3 - It is a combination of both. Karlsson's injury history and performance prior to this season caused there to be a very limited market for him. Instead of saying a Norris winner only got this trade, you should ask yourself what circumstances with the salary cap caused it so that a Norris winner could only get this trade. Look at how many very good players and stars have been given away for nothing. This shouldn't be a shock.
4 - I did not suggest they could, perhaps I should have been more specific. I was referring to the final year on their contract, hence not bringing up Hoffman who will be a UFA at that time.
5 - This is not true. If it was true, we wouldn't have seen Chychrun go to the Senators, or any of the other trades that always happen this way. The reality is that teams risk more by holding on to disgruntled players. I outlined it in a previous post. There is a reason GMs always say "oh man I don't have to trade this guy if I don't get what I want", then the player coincidentally gets traded at a logical deadline (training camp, prior to July 1st, trade deadline, etc) with the GM not getting what they actually wanted.
6 - This is covered in 5. I won't re-iterate my entire previous post. But there are very valid reasons why a player gets moved in these scenarios.
7 - Again, I don't really have a comment on that. I think he did great work to get out of almost the entirety of years 3/4 of a massive contract that has mostly been through to be un-moveable, and to get a 1st round pick.

The Canadiens side of the deal makes a lot more sense with the news that they plan to market Petry with additional retention. Odds are, there was no market for him at his full salary, and Pittsburgh wasn't willing to retain enough to move him.

This is pretty fair for all teams involved imo.
From a Sharks perspective, this was a good return for what Grier was willing to do. Didn't retain too much, acquired players that slot into the top six and can be flipped for assets, and accelerating the rebuild just slightly. This gives us a great shot to improve defensively, and an even better chance to get players that will help the future (i.e. Celebrini, Kiviharju, Eiserman). For once, I can actually see direction in what Sharks management wants to do, and they want to rebuild. The Burns deal was iffy, but the trades since the Meier deal have been pretty good for the team, and there are potentially more on the way.

Pittsburgh gets a facelift on the cap front, as well as a Norris winning defenseman who will play a substantial role in getting them back to the playoffs, and Dubas can still get a supplemental piece for the bottom six with the extra space, assuming he doesn't want Alex Nylander playing 10-15m a night. They also undid all of Hextall's wrongs, which is a win.

Montreal did decently and got Petry back who should aid their young blueline or the potential for more assets, as well as getting a second rounder, and a backup goaltender in DeSmith, which could mark the end of both Jake Allen and Cayden Primeau, as Montembeault/DeSmith is the likely tandem.

Considering Petry spent 8 years living in Montreal and 1 year in Pittsburgh, I can see Petry just getting back to normal living in the city he's known for the majority of his playing career.

2025 TDL, yes as a rental player before UFA, but I strongly believe Petry will be ok in Montreal again.

Kinda late to the party but man, the return for San Jose here is terrible... I had a mock of this with separate amalgamations, but I just assumed SJ would retain more to get more from us, and that another team would do the same thing. Guess nobody wants to have money on the long term books... but yeah holy sh i TE! Grier got next to nothing.

The potential return of Hoffman or whoever else non withstanding, and as some other people pointed out, he got NO prospects or futures out of this deal. How the Fk! do they not INSIST on Joseph being included in this deal???????

That blows my mind. Did they want a 1st more than him? That also makes no sense.

San Jose, they must have been in the mindset of "We have to get out of this contract" as opposed to "We have to maximize value for the return of trading the reigning Norris Trophy winner"

Like, they aren't trying to be good now, so the addition of Rutta doesn't move the needle for their defense (which is terrible, btw. Rutta, although he is a sparsely used bottom pairing guy, does in fact make their blue line better). Granlund makes their offense better...technically. Hoffman... can be flipped? I mean realistically their team, on paper, got better, but for a rebuilding team, don't they want players that will be good.... later?

The Pens got their guy, cleared out a bunch of pieces that never quite fit completely... and gave up very little in long term assets. Oh yeah, they also get a cheap young forward with an undetermined ceiling.

These line combos are gonna be interesting.

In my mocks I had us paying much more to get more retention, but this is a big swing the other way.

Nice job Kyle. For real dawg, mad respect.

And yeah, Montreal got nice haul here, but Petry doesn't fit on their blue line currently. Glad he was willing to go back there. I thought he was fine here in his one year but if you have to trade a guy to get Erik Karlsson you do it. Doesn't even really matter the guy.

People here saying that his contract is bad need to wise up. This is a generational talent; arguably the best defensemen of the past decade. You have the opportunity to get him you do it and you figure out the rest later. Our PP is about to become a big time threat.

Hot damn am I excited for this season! LGP!

I mean 0.5ppg on those abysmal SJS teams isn't exactly terrible. How was his health during that time?

Yes his defense and contract sucks (less sucks now i guess), but he's going to be playing with some of the best in hockey on PIT, just imagine how many points he'll rack up on their powerplay. I wouldn't be surprised if he records another 100pts next season.

Aside from Karlsson's value, I'm more surprised on the fact that PIT didn't have to pay to unload Granlund and Ruuta. That's what makes this trade horrendous for Grier in my opinion.

Do anyone think Mike Hoffman will get traded again some point today?

We won't really know the consequences of this trade for several years, but for now I think this makes sense on some level for all parties involved.

Pittsburgh gets Karlsson and improves quite a bit immediately without having to give up a ton of assets, so in the here and now this trade is a positive for them. However, Karlsson will be on their books at a cap hit of $10M for the next four seasons, and his advanced age combined with that of the rest of the team means that when the bill comes due the Pens will likely be in rougher shape than they otherwise would have been.

On the surface, I feel like the Sharks should have extracted more from Pittsburgh for taking on Granlund and Rutta's contracts, however I am impressed they still got a first round pick while only retaining $1.5M of his cap hit. This trade will look a lot better for San Jose if they can rehabilitate Granlund, Rutta, and/or Hoffman and trade them elsewhere for more assets.

To me Montreal did very well here as a third team. They got a 2nd round pick and another option at goalie while shedding a player who was on his way out anyway. Petry returns to familiar surroundings and can be a mentor for their young defense, though his contract in my mind is less moveable than Hoffman's. The Habs might be stuck with him if they can't find any takers and his play declines, a very real possibility considering Petry's age. Overall though I think Montreal got the best combination of current value and lower risk of the three teams.

Petry forgot to put Montreal on his no-trade list lmao

1. In San Jose's case, the dollar amount from the salary retention is not the issue.

It's the number of retention spots they have left.

After retaining on Burns and Karlsson, the Sharks can only retain salary on 1 other player for the next 2 years.



3. Circumstances surrounding the flat salary cap don't dictate who wins or loses a trade over a hockey player.

Or whether the trade is fair.

What does is the player's on-ice performance and then the contract that comes with him in the trade.

Furthermore, when a very good player or star player is traded for pennies on the dollar, their old team gets worse while their new team gets better.



5. The key for Arizona in trading Chychrun to Ottawa was a relatively high first for 2023.

Higher than the firsts that were offered by other teams.

They fell well short of their asking price, but it was the best it was going to get for them.

The trick with making a desperately needed trade is having an affordable asking price while doing what you can to "save face".



7. Shedding Karlsson's contract with Karlsson's approval was the easy part.

What was critical was getting value for your franchise Norris Trophy winning defenceman.

And the 1st was the only piece of any significance in this trade for the Sharks.

It isn't great work because it simply isn't enough.

Idc what people think about +/- stats, -73 over the last 4 seasons is terrible for any Dman. Pittsburgh should play him RW to be sure 2 guy can cover his butt.