Leafs taking on a contract spot for a goalie who won't play for them & if he does, they're in trouble.

They got Hutton for Nuttin'!

I don't get this trade. The leafs are just tring to get on th egood side of Arizona?

Wouldn't taking the trade be better than claiming him off waivers?

It's a one year contract and the leafs have the roster spot available. Not going to stand here and say I think this was a great trade or anything. I just don't see it as anything more than gambling on an insurance policy

Why would anyone want to trade for Carter Hutton?

Why would anyone want to claim him off waivers? At least this way they don’t have to actually play him.

Why? It was an unwritten condition of the Ritchie trade . Dzingal and Hutton were traded to the Leafs so the Leafs are responsible for their salaries, in no team claimed them off waivers...which the Leafs did
The actual cash that Phoenix saves , by not having Dzingel and Hutton helps pay for Ritchie's salary. Don't know why folks can't figure this out. It wasn't a "hockey trade", but more or less a cash transition. And cash transactions are illegal in NHL trades.

There may be a need for a depth goalie. But the original point still stands, if you have the option to get someone in a trade for free or grab off waivers, taking the trade is better.

In any case, I fail to see why the Leafs would want anything to do with Carter Hutton.

Unless this is somehow also part of the Nick Ritchie trade from 2 days earlier.


IMO, what would make more sense is if Arizona traded Hutton to Toronto as part of the Ritchie trade instead of Dzingel.

And then sent Dzingel to San Jose for ..... anything, really.

If the Hutton trade is part of the Ritchie trade, then it would make more sense.

However, Capfriendly and everybody else in the hockey world are treating it as two separate trades

I'm just trying to tell it like it is.



Also, I'm a bit puzzled that the Coyotes think these two trades help them financially.

The Coyotes now owe Ritchie 5 million in actual salary over the next 2 years, unless they buy him out.

Versus 2.1 million for Hutton + Lyubushkin. `



I also don't understand why the Coyotes wouldn't just pick up the phone and call the Sharks to ask if they were interested in Dzingel.

I'm sure if the asking price for Dzingel was future considerations, the Sharks would be happy to have him.

Campbell, Mrazek, Woll and Hutchinson are all better than Hutton.

As such, Toronto's goalie depth seems fine.



Also, waivers is something you would use for players that either have no trade value.

Or that are simply not wanted by their own teams anymore.

Sort of like the Island of Misfit Toys.



Also, my first post on this trade was meant as a joke.

Based on the number of likes I got, some people seemed to find it funny.

I do agree with you that trading for Hutton is better than claiming him off waivers though.

Oh I agree. Acquiring him made no sense.

Maybe Toronto didn't want to have Dzingel and Hutton on their roster at the same time due to limits on the number of roster spots or contracts or something like that. I don't know all the rules around those things, but that might explain why they had to wait until Dzingel was waived.



They also got a draft choice out of the deal. There has to be some cost for that. It's also possible that they think Ritchie might benefit from the change of scenery and actually be a useful player for them.



I wonder about stuff like that too. Like why didn't Seattle take Zadorov in the expansion draft and flip him to Calgary instead of wasting the pick on a pending UFA they didn't sign and letting Chicago make that deal? Maybe the GMs don't talk to each other as much as we think they do.

Haha maybe they do need him.