The Montreal Canadiens have made some serious changes to the roster this summer, but some of the high-priced talent is still in town. Jeff Petry in particular is an odd fit for the rebuilding club given his age (34) and struggles last season. With his public desire for a different fit closer to home, pressure has continued to build in Montreal for general manager Kent Hughes to find a trade.
Well, perceived pressure at least.
Hughes met with the media Thursday and explained that, while it is a priority, he will not rush into a decision on Petry that weakens the Canadiens moving forward. He reiterated that if a trade is to be made, Montreal will not retain any of the money left on the veteran defenseman’s contract. Petry carries a $6.25M cap hit for the next three seasons.
"At the end of the day it’s about finding that trade that makes sense for the Montreal Canadiens. If we’re able to find it, we’ll do it. If not, Jeff will have to return to Montreal and play here. We love him as a player, I think he loves everything about Montreal other than the complications from a family perspective. "
The key here is that the Canadiens aren’t considering a Petry trade a salary dump and are maintaining that they will keep him through the end of his contract if necessary. While some of that is likely just a negotiating tactic, if the Canadiens are truly unwilling to retain any salary, Petry’s market will likely shrivel considerably.
It’s hard for any team to absorb a $6.25M cap hit and even more difficult to do it for a defenseman who is signed through his 37th birthday. Petry’s offensive production fell last season to just 27 points in 68 games as he appeared disinterested (or perhaps just distracted) at times, and there is no sure bet that it will return if he goes elsewhere.
Still, for teams that miss out on other right-shot puck-movers in free agency and other trades, Petry remains an option that is available for the right price. Hughes was asked directly whether John Klingberg’s availability was holding things up; he replied “not necessarily.”
More must-reads: